EVE Search - Balancing - Identifying problems

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing - Identifying problems

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:13:00 - [1] Hi, Balancing is an ongoing process; there will always room for improvement. This pursuit for maximized fairness and stability will always be disputed, one way or another. Everyone has an opinion; this is where I want you to voice them in a very simple manner. Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. With Apocrypha changes authored and checked in IÆve got some breathing room. During this time IÆm going to be more active on the forums and follow this thread through. Please note this is not a discussion thread. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Miyamoto Uroki Caldari Katsu Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:36:00 - [2] Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) 2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...) 3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used)
Grez Minmatar Core Contingency	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:42:00 - [3] 1) ECM drones (compared to other EW drones, they are superior) 2) Armour tanks vs. shield tanks (in a large majority of cases, a shield tanking ship is superior to an armour tanking one) 3) DCU - has CPU requirements akin to a passive module (make it passive <3) --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON
Finnroth Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:53:00 - [4] Edited by: Finnroth on 17/04/2009 09:53:40 1.) ECM Drones and EW Drones in general ECM is the only really useful, and they're quite a bit too strong. On the contrary. the other EW drones lack any utility at all and nee to be looked over again. No Tech2 versions aswell 2.) Rockets, they're just horrible. 3.) Most of the T2 ammunition suck hard. Sniper ammo is fine, and some close-quarter long-range ammo (namely scorch) is more or less fine, but the high dps short-short-range ammo sucks in comparison with faction ammo (i don't care if you want to do something about faction ammo or boost the normal T2 ammo, eitherway there's an unbalance at the moment). The short long-rage ammo is also pretty much across the board utter trash - in dire need for some love. Those are the things i feel can be done pretty easy. There're other things i would like to see adressed aswell, like faction ships, but this would probably take alot more effort than to fix the three entrys above.
Aylara	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:17:00 - [5] 1. Hybrid Turrets, mostly the Blasters 2. Drones a) management: the UI is horrible; b) Gallente drone bays too small -> there are Amarr ships with more drone capacity and bandwith (Amarr recons first comes to mind?) 3. Fix the Gallente, make them again the top damage dealers in everyday combat situations, not only special instances; atm Amarr are top tankers and damage dealers in PVP engagements. Bonus: Hull tanking, not really an option; I think this was first intended for Gallente in the development phase, since Gallente have strong hulls
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 17/04/2009 10:22:08 Hmm... 1) Overloading being stacking penalized with module effects. BAD [This is not about guns, but about mods like ABs/MWDs/Reps/Shield Boosters, etc]. Especially bad when you think about T3 being so heat-focused... 2) T2 Ammunition, especially close-range T2 ammo. 3) Overall balance of some T3 subsystems. AB speed boost one comes to mind when compared to overall speed boost one(as in, the latter is superior even if you use AB - it affects base speed too, is just as fast with AB running, is not limited to AB for propulsion, etc...). Slot decisions on some are also weird - in most cases we get Legion with less lows and more mids than Proteus Last) ECM Drones PS. Almost forgot.. Zulupark promised that Sentry drones would benefit from racial specialization skills. When?
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:23:00 - [7] 1¦ Some weapons like large artilleries and rockets are a bit unbalanced. 2¦ Naglfar is very sub par, not only because the weird slot layout (tempest with typhoon bonus), the 4 weapons are bad for overloading compared to the other dreads with 3 weapons: less damage even with 4 weapons and less overload time because more weapons. 3¦ High damage T2 ammo, simply too many drawbacks for the benefit compared to faction ammo. Nobody really uses conflagration, gleam and the other races homologues. ________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img
Jovoich Kleinrock Heavy Industries The Kadeshi	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:29:00 - [8] My one and only wish! Bring ECM in line with other EW. Remove the chance based factor. I call 'Bull****' CCP. Isn't it great that the alchemy process was introduced & can 'take up the slack?'
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:31:00 - [9] 1) T2 ammo. Nuff' said. 2) Black ops(Can has fuel bay?) 3) Maybe have a look at command-ships. They could use a shake-around and maybe some tier-2 BC models, T2-ified.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec.

Another Forum'Alt Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:34:00 - [11] Edited by: Another Forum''Alt on 17/04/2009 10:35:36 Remove insurance, I thought EVE was supposed to have a harsh penalty for death. Boost damps. Nerf HACtors at gatecamps in lowsec. malcanis, you do realise EVE probably won't survive without mission runners, right? They pay a lot in subscriptions to CCP, CCP won't want to make them all quit. BECAUSE OF FALCON. Guide to forum posting
Clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:40:00 - [12] 1) ECM Drones, so overpowered that they are manditory fit now. 2) Increase base jump range of black ops to 2.5au 3) Agility but thats being sorted, right ? Also why dont you tell us what you think is unbalanced? -------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:41:00 - [13] Balance Issue 1. Sovereignty Under present rules there is no real way to take down a large alliance. They in truth can only be taken down from within such as what happened to BoB. In order to make EVE more exciting we need a revamp of Sov rules to enable medium and small alliances a chance at having Sov which is impossible under current rules. 2. Let me think about it. 3. Thinking about it. Comments: Keep in mind balance is an illusion, you can never truly achieve balance in any game unless everyone is absolutely the same...which is boring. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Whineroy	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Malcanis This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Also get rid of GTC/PLEX trade if you want to get rid of "0.0 class rewards collected with no danger". It isn't exactly lvl 4 mission runners that keep GTC/PLEX prices up. Missions do need reforming but it is far more complex issue than "just move L4s to lowsec" or similar.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:45:00 - [15] 1. med and large blasters, large AC, rockets. 2. half of t2 ammo is useless 3. shield vs armor tank for higher metalevels.
Doomed Predator The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:46:00 - [16] 1. Missiles are fine for missions and all that but in pvp missiles are ineffective against their intended targets if that target moves at full speed(god forbid he has an AB). -T1 missiles should do 80-90% damage to targets of their intended size while he is using an afterburner -T2 precisions should do 80-90% damage to targets while MWD is active -T2 Rage/Fury should do 80-90% damage to a target one tier larger than their intended -T2 Javelin should have 70% range of it's long range counterpart 2. Truesec 0.0, basically most of 0.0 has poor truesec and thus suck, an non-NPC 0.0 region should have 80% of it's systems with truesec lower than -0.80, in addition all 0.0 belts should have spawns in them,when you find every second belt empty it gets old very fast. 3. Level 4 missions generating too much ISK. The ISK per hour from a level 4 mission in hi-sec at least should never exceed the ISK per hour of a half decent 0.0 system. So either boost 0.0 NPC bounties or preferably reduce hi-sec mission rewards and NPC bountys The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:47:00 - [17] 1. Buffer tank modules. BS size modules should NOT fit on cruiser hulls, if they do no other "useful" cruiser size mod should fit. Bring back skill by re-introducing active tanks. 2. T2 Close range ammo. Introduction of readily available navy munitions have completely nullified the T2 version. Reduce damage, keep range and give a huge boost to tracking. 3. ECM Drones. The chance based nature makes them godly, a single flight of mediums require a maximum of 1 minute to get a jam on a dual-ECCM Guardian. Either remove them or reduce their HP to mining drone levels to allow for smartbombs to function as counter (smarts have huge fitting requirements and generally useless unless on dedicated disco ships).
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions. You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire. The main problem with isk making in 0.0 and wormhole space is time commitment those who can't play full time, are at a very distinct disadvantage whereas they can hop on in empire and do a mission in the time they have. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:48:00 - [19] 1. Rockets 2. T2 ammo (closerange one being balls) 3. destroyers (uber balls) and a bit dictors (survivalability on those due to huge sig radius)
Virgo I'Platonicus Zoners Frontal Impact	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:49:00 - [20] 1) artillery long range alpha strike (imo too low for tanks today) 2) ecm drones too good for the skill requirements. 3) black ops need fuel bay .... V. <3

5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:50:00 - [21] If there was a limit of 20 I'd still easily fill it, so it's really hard picking a top three. 1. Energy Neuts - Rebalance 2. Passive Tanking - Rebalance 3. Eccm modules - Not useful enough like cap injectors and sensor boosters. if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature.
Jay T	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:51:00 - [22] 1. High Sec Lvl 4 Missions (Risk verse Reward ratio sucks) 2. Bookmarking Inflight missiles (Because shooting missiles that can compromise sniper fleets is BS) 3. Amarr Pulse Range (Becuase that stuff is way to good)
Rellik B00n	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:57:00 - [23] (1) racial EW. Got to be a way to balance this across the board, it would be fun to have a real rock, paper, scissors type situation with EW rather than the current FOTM, FOTM, FOTM one we have. (2) shield tanking tackler. I fly both armor and shield ships but whenever i look through the slot layouts its kinda: Armor: LOW - tank/damage MED - tackle/propulsion/ewar HIGH - f1 f2 f3 Shield LOW - damage MED - tank/tackle/propulsion/ewar HIGH - f1 f2 f3 This disparity has always bugged me since it effectively means people than cant rely on always having a blob to help them must inevitably choose armor. Less choice is bad. (3) Black-ops BS. Please help them!
Count Helmchen	Posted - 2009.04.17 10:58:00 - [24] T1 Ships 1) Slot layout on most Battleships, cruiser etc are not inline ...for example, the Armageddon & Typhoon (tier1) get 19 slots where the Dominix & Scorpion only have 18 .. give the last two ships the missing slot 2) Faction Ships like the Ashimmu, need a cpmplete overhaul and redesign (btw, give the bhallgorn its own unique model!) 1) tier 1 Battlecruisers ... where do i start? they are the worst ships n term of damage, fitting, bonus etc in the hole galaxy!!!!! T2 Ships 1) Give the Rook & Falcon the same amount of drone bandwith and cargo bay like the other recons ships .. without the 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints they are still weaker with drones like the other ones 2) Commandships (Nighthawk f.e.) need some love, speaking of give them more pg and cpu to allow them to fit a proper fitting 3) BlackOps ; whats the entire idea behind a ship, which cannot jumps complete on his own into one system to another ? why does we need another "alt" to bring him first into a cynojammed system to be able to jump with our BO ship into it ? Infiltration does not need any support.. got it ? T3 Ships 1) Give EVERY t3 hull 25 drone bandwith/cargo base attributes ... goddamn, they are t3 ships! 2) redesign the model of the ECM & Scan Electronic Subsystem for the Tengu!! ugly! 3) Propulsion Subsystem are a joke, espacially the new one (bubble imunnuenity) in combination with covert ops cloak Weapons 1) Lasers to strong, to high optimal & tracking 2) Hybrids to weak , worst tracking and optimal 3) Projectiles subpar, dont even speak of Artys 4) Missiles, currently the worst form of damage mechanism in eve RR Gangs 1) to strong in its current form Snipers 1) to strong in its current form more to come
Toramii Le Moulin Rouge	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:03:00 - [25] 1. Buff medium and large blasters (or dedicated blaster ships) The above need improvement since the web nerf. Remember, 90% webifiers were originally designed to enable blaster ships to track targets at their abysmal short range, the web nerf nerfed some blaster ships to mediocrity. The webifier nerf was needed to make smaller ships usable and is welcomed by most people, myself included, but blasters were never re-balanced to compensate. Blasterships were not classed as overpowered before the web nerf, blasters are supposed to be the most feared short range weapons ingame, please fix them. 2. T2 Ammo Re-balance T2 ammo and remove the stacking penalties to make it an alternative to faction ammo. 3. TBC
Willy Nerfalot	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:11:00 - [26] [1] blasters. not overpowered before web nerf, definitely suffering from 400% tracking nerf. [2] blaster ships in general. they need a large dps advantage and the ability to reliably hit their target once in range, in order to overcome the typical damage incurred from closing range. a mere 10% advantage (or worse once shots start missing due to poor tracking) over equivalent missiles is simply not good enough. [3] gallente recons. need much better bonus to damps to be worth flying compared to other recons.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:15:00 - [27] 1- Minmatar large and XL weapons. 2 - Naglfar and Nidhogur (omg those are sinferior in every frickign possible way to their counteparts .. just compare directly to the gallente ones,, ) 3 - SHield transporters need a MASSIVE reduction on fittings.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:16:00 - [28] The ashimmu needs help with CPU and Powergrid so you can actualy get a fit on it, Its a great ship both in stats and looks but at the moment it is impossible to fit anything on it. Also the Amarr navy slicer needs some help. At the moment it is a ship that doesnt know what it wants to be which means you cant fit it very well. And finaly could you alter the retri so that I can fit the following. It is my favorate of all ships but I wish I could solo in it. [Retribution, If only] Small Armor Repairer II Adaptive Nano Plating II Capacitor Power Relay II Armor Thermic Hardener II Heat Sink II 1MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Small Nosferatu II [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:18:00 - [29] Edited by: Wang Jing on 17/04/2009 11:18:22 1) Faction ships, other than the Sanshas, need to be updated, as many suffer from huge fitting problems, or awful bonuses/slots (i.e. the dramiel with 3 turret bonuses yet only 2 out of 5 high slots able to fit turrets, the cruor with a bonus to stasis webifiers yet only 2 midslots). 2) Assault Frigates deserve to have their 4 bonuses, in line with the other T2 ships. For example, the Wolf and Jaguar do not get the 7.5% bonus to turret tracking that the rifter has, making them laughable for use with autocannons either against other frigates, or in the tight orbit necessary when fighting "under the guns" of a cruiser. I have recently made a thread to discuss this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1050315 3) Rockets need to be rebalanced. They do laughable dps to start with, especially considering their fitting requirements; compare a vengenace with any other assault frigate (other than the hawk ), plus their explosion velocity means they are rendered almost useless against frigates, when they are a frigate class weapon.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:19:00 - [30] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions. You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire.. So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate? That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing?

TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:25:00 - [31] 1) ECM Drones. Too low skill requirements for how powerful they are. Even when competing against tech 2 damage drones, most choose the ECM for how cheap and useful they are. 2) Large Artillery. Clip sizes too small on artillery and alpha too low. Tempest could use another turret slot aswell. 3) Tech 2 ammo. Mostly the t2 close range ammo, like Void and Javelin for hybrid guns. They are just never used. I would complain about rockets too, but no one uses them and so few ships have bonuses that we just pretend they don't exist.
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:31:00 - [32] Increase the effectiveness of EW drones except for ECM drones. Why? Because I'm getting sick of everyone always yelling 'NERF!' for any item that actually does the job it's ment to do. I would love to see some positive ideas in stead of the ever present 'It works to good(for someone else), nerf it!' remarks.
Logan Feynman Deconstruction Ltd.	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:31:00 - [33] T2 Ammo Rockets HiSec Lvl4 Missions
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:32:00 - [34] T2 Ammo vs Faction ammo T2 is harder to create, more expensive to create, and worse in pretty much every imaginable way due to how it affects the ship at large (reduced tracking on already slow-tracking weapons, slows the ship down, kills capacitor, makes the ship easier to hit). Some of — but far from all — the long-range stuff works because at those ranges, the downsides don't make any difference… but that only tips the balance the other way and further shows how poorly though-out these downsides are. 0.0 warfare, in particular POS-Based Sovereignty. Too easy to create and maintain vs. soul-crushing boredom to attack. Not so much a classic stats-balance issue, but one of motivational balance: there is little disincentive against spam POSes all ove the place, whereas on the other side, POS spam create huge disincentives against attacking due to tedium rather than actual difficulty. Empire warfare through wardeccing. Entirely based around station camping on the very very very few occasions when either side doesn't simply evade the wardec by jumping corps. Economic and counter-logistical warfare is a fools errand. Again, not stats-based balancing but rather gaming mechanics that makes the (supposed) fighting non-existant because the balance between what means are available to the attacker are not in synch with what's available to the defender. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:33:00 - [35] Faction ships. Sansha ships got updated and are very nice. But what of the others? The Guristas ships are particularly horrible - they have a split weapon bonus but not the fittings to make use of it. The Rattlesnake is effectively just a Raven with some more HP and an extra lowslot, for example. I can't remember the last time I saw a Worm or Gila. The faction ships are popular, desirable ships and don't deserve to be such disappointments in many cases. Field Command ships. Without a gang mod, these are unattractive compared to BS. So they should fit a gang mod. Unfortunately, the NH doesn't have the PG to do this, and people get upset about dropping a gun on the Astarte. I think the class needs to reworked. Rocket and Cruise. While other missiles are fine in PVP and were either boosted or broadly unchanged by the QR missile changes, Rockets and Cruise have problems. Rockets' problems are that they're fitting intensive, have low base damage, require the target to be webbed (tricky when you're flying a frigate with limited medslots) and suffer greatly when the target is ABing (rockets' intended target, frigates, being the only ship class where ABs are commonly seen). Cruise's problem is that it's always been worthless in its intended role of long-range anti-BS missile, because when shooting BS at long range you require the instant damage of turret snipers. Given that its intended role is worthless, I've no idea how to make it a worthwhile PVP weapon without refocussing it as an weapons system to be used against smaller ships, such as large cruisers such as HACs and recons - which goes against the BS-class weapon designation.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:34:00 - [36] 1) Rebalance of 0.0 Rewards. It shouldn't be as simple as "If moon = high end it = (deathtrap for smaller players / Big Alliance Milking Moon(delete as appropriate)) Add in more random chance events at belts/gates regarding NPCs. 2) Boost the Ashimmu, Cynabal, All "Guristas" faction ships, And shoot whoever designed the slow layout / bonus designation of the Dramiel. Give the Bhaalgorn, Vindicator, Vigilant, Rattlesnake, Gila and Worm their own models. Bring out a new chronicle regarding this if needed, There is no reason other than lazyness not to, and part of the fun of the faction ships is the fact they are supposed to look unique. 3) Serpentis Extravaganza, Angel Extravaganza, Guristas Extravaganza. No Sansha, or even Blood Raider Extravaganza's. More so, Angel Extravaganza in Amarr and Minmatar space whilst Gallente gets Serpentis (To the best of my knowlege) and Caldari get Guristas (Unless something changed recently). Its just something thats always bugged me. The only race getting boned by a different pirate-faction in the extravaganza league is Amarr. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Thyroxine	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:39:00 - [37] 1. Rockets 2. T2 short range ammo 3. shield vs armor tank.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:39:00 - [38] 1) Rebalance of 0.0 Rewards. It shouldn't be as simple as "If moon = high end it = (deathtrap for smaller players / Big Alliance Milking Moon(delete as appropriate)) Add in more random chance events at belts/gates regarding NPCs. 2) Boost the Ashimmu, Cynabal, All "Guristas" faction ships, And shoot whoever designed the slow layout / bonus designation of the Dramiel. Give the Bhaalgorn, Vindicator, Vigilant, Rattlesnake, Gila and Worm their own models. Bring out a new chronicle regarding this if needed, There is no reason other than lazyness not to, and part of the fun of the faction ships is the fact they are supposed to look unique. 3) Serpentis Extravaganza, Angel Extravaganza, Guristas Extravaganza. No Sansha, or even Blood Raider Extravaganza's. More so, Angel Extravaganza in Amarr and Minmatar space whilst Gallente gets Serpentis (To the best of my knowlege) and Caldari get Guristas (Unless something changed recently). Its just something thats always bugged me. The only race getting boned by a different pirate-faction in the extravaganza league is Amarr. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
RedeyeAce Caldari Inspired Evolution	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:40:00 - [39] 1. Minmatar in general, TP as EW isnt EW.... Projectiles suck, look at dps vs tracking on 425 - 800 ac's as for instance.. 2. Defender missiles, maybe change them in general to chaff which works with guns and missiles and uses another slot similair to rig? with limited ammo and chance base 3. Introduce Command ship variant Battleships
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:41:00 - [40] 1. projectile weapons. artillary needs bigger clips(impossible to use during heavy lag since u cant reload) ac looses to much dps from having to fight in falloff.(no, the damage types doesnt compensate for the crappy dps they do), and when calculating the dps on minmatar ships please remember to actually calculate the dps you do in falloff since nobody flying minatar ships would be dumb enough to enter optimal of another bs 2. blasters: need better tracking to compensate for the horrible range they have.(or blaster ships needs to get some sort of built in web bonus) <-- one can only dream 3. web nerf was to extreme, making frigs way to powerfull. larger guns needs to at least have a slight chance to hurt ships of smaller sizes.

Lee Dalton THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:43:00 - [41] 1. Large Projectiles. Large autocannons and artillery need a serious reworking. 2. ECM. ECM is overpowered - despite the nerf - relative to other forms of Ewar. This includes ECM boats and ECM drones. Nerf ECM or buff other Ewar. 3. Rockets. Rockets are a primary weapon system for several ships now - fix them so they are not outdamaged by a Velator. *** You're only as good as your last fight.
Saietor Blackgreen Pioneer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:48:00 - [42] Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 17/04/2009 11:56:21 1. Blasters. They always had reputation of weapon that creates "sphere of certain death" around target, but relatively small one. Yet they have lower tracking than ACs, which are aimed for longer engagement range. Up the blaster's tracking, or lower their sigresolution, and mb even increase damage a little - anything really, so that parity is kept - lasers hit far, but can be outtracked, ACs are hard (but not impossible) to outtrack, and lower range, but wider effective window, blasters - very closerange but almost impossible to outtrack. 2. Artillery. Again, while capless is an advantage (i can really feel it on my mission Maelstrom!), they have no role anymore. Lasers are topdamage, rails are longest range. Artillery needs a place. Either alpha boost, or change to optimal/falloff ratio to make them similar to ACs - the closer, the higher alpha. But then the proj. ammo will need total change. 3. Minmatar recons - worth haing a look at web strength. Maybe theres a need for boost there. They should not be as effective as Arazu's scramblers though on MWDing targets. ---
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:48:00 - [43] 1) Tech II Ammunition is not balanced with Faction Ammunition and mostly useless 2) Assault Frigates deserve their 4th Bonus cause some Alliances even banned them from their fleets 3) Rockets. They are horrible. Up their grid req and damage, so they follow HAML and Siege Launcher.
Valtis Thermalion Caldari Humantarget Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:50:00 - [44] 1. T2 ammunition. Close range gunnery ammunition is useless, 1 - 2% damage increase over faction ammo for massive penalties, no thanks. Also precision missiles could use damage boost. 2. Rockets. Extremely low dps. 3. Powergrid on some caldari ships, especially nighthawk, is too small. Cerberus and eagle could also use minor increase.
Xennith Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.04.17 11:50:00 - [45] 1. Missioning in highsec space is risk free and more profitable than all but the best 0.0 ratting. 2. Shield tanking is massively sub par compared to armour tanking for nearly all ships and situations. 3. Remote repping should prevent docking or gate activation, out of corp logistic support alts sensor boosting or remote repping should not be immune to response. We come for our people
Spawinte Blehmehduhhuh	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:00:00 - [46] 1. Local channel being used as intel tool in lowsec and nullsec. That is all.
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:03:00 - [47] 1, too much of the mineral supply comes from loot drops. also dropped t1 meta loot makes a lot of t1 player made modules pointless. i would massively reduce the drop rate, remove meta 0(t1) modules from all npcs, remove ammo from all npcs, remove cap charges from all npcs. make all loot drops rarer and better, consider bpcs for t1 meta items that require player made t1 modules to build. make it essentially so that getting loot is rarer but the chance is that you will get something worthwhile. this will also reduce the total amount of isk possible from l4 missions. 2 player income streams. l4 missions, i believe are ok, i think the problem lies with the other income opportunities, l3 missions give too much lp and not enough isk. ratting anywhere but 0.0 is garbage. personally i think (massively) increasing the spawn rate of cosmic anomalies would be a great idea, they are like little missions but you find them your self and promote players moving around more, and could tempt more players to lowsec. i would also do something that is actually a massive change, remove bounties all together and replace them with tags that are turned in to npc buy orders. just an idea. 3. with the advent of t3 and looking forward... i would remove the chance based invention. make it 100%, rebalance decryptors, and make hacking sites more common. essentially make t2 production slightly easier and cheaper. also make t2 ammo better, remove or reduce the penalties, nerf ecm more, fix blasters, fix not hitting at 0m
Renesis Maximus	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:03:00 - [48] (1) T2 Short-range ammo is not worth it. As it stands right now, people get T2 weapons for the ROF benefits, but it should be that players actually want to use the ammo that comes with T2. As it stands, there is no reason to use T2 short-range ammo over faction ammo. (2) Blasters need buffed. They don't need to be godly, but they currently do pitiful damage considering the risk require to use them. The tracking needs increased as well. You need to get really close, then when you try to orbit them, you can't hit them worth **** because your tracking is horrible. When you get into Optimal, they are effectivley under your guns, which should not be the case with Blasters. (3) It's a small issue, but it bugs me alot. I think it's only a UI issue, but ever since Apocrypha went live, all of my hits are considered "Barely Scratching." Like I said, it's minor, and the damage seems to be in line with something that would be "wrecking" but it's all considered barely scratching and it bugs me.
Rehtom Lamina Mob Thought The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:06:00 - [49] 1) ECM vs other ewar, bring ecm inline with other ewar mods regarding its chance based effect. 2) High sec missions, bring them inline with empire < lowsec < 0.0 < wormhole npc'ing, either reduce rewards or increase difficulty without adding extra loot, rewards or salvage. 3) Give assult frigs there extra bonus to bring them inline.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:18:00 - [50] 1- Large Arties and large AC 2- TITANS.. they are bad gameplay and too common 3- Fine tunnign of some economy balance devices like alchemy.. Hi end moons are toooooo important right now. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Darcon Kylote Canadian Imperial Armaments	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:28:00 - [51] 1. Rockets 2. T2 Ammo 3. Assault frigates
Dampil The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:29:00 - [52] 1. Large projectiles (these needs a buff, a massive one would be preferd. 2. Missions. high sec missions needs to be nerfed so low sec and 0,0 mission running can have a chance to compete. why would anyone run missions in low sec as it is now when the risk is 100x bigger and the rewards only slightly better. 3. Web nerf is over the top, why isnt a battleship web more powerfull then a web a frig can use? scale the power of the mods to the ships that use them so battleships will again be worth flying solo
Kasi Kasai	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:29:00 - [53] 1} Titans - the longer its left the bigger the problem will be, non high sec is already becoming titans online. 2} Sov - Its too easy to hold sov over large tracts of unused space, this is stultifying the new corps/alliances that want 0.0 space but cant get any without joining an already existing powerblock 3) Resources - static resources in any form, be it moons, complexes which should be random but aren't, even static belts, are bad for the game as they result in a turtling mentality, yes people need things to fight over, but if the resources were fluid there would be a lot more fights as people would actually have to go look for them, to this end pos would have to be looked at as well as currently they take too long to setup in a fluid resource scenario.
Omber Zombie Gallente Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:30:00 - [54] 1. T2 Ammo 2. Supercaps and caps in general 3. Corp/Alliance interface/options ---------------------- My Blog
Varrakk Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:30:00 - [55] 1) Cyno Jammer - Gives awesome advantage for no drawbacks. 2) High End Moon mining - Isk generator. Allows alliance to roll out titans and other capital ships on a assembly line. 3) Complexes - Very few with extreme rewards. Rest is high undesirabled with very unbalanced drops. Especially in rewards between High/Low/0 Sec
Jogvan Neo Spartans	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:32:00 - [56] 1. Lvl4 missions, too much reward for almost no risk 2. High end moons are overpowered 3. Make t2 ammo useful but DONT nerf faction ammo.
Yzman Shhan Minmatar Blind Violence HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:34:00 - [57] Edited by: Yzman Shhan on 17/04/2009 12:34:46 1. Projectiles They definately need to be looked at. Large artillery is sub-par in particular. Small and medium AC's seem to be quite ok though. 2. Black Ops Jump distance needs a buff, a fuel bay added or less need for fuel. 3. 0.0 Local changes I'd really like to see a change to 0.0 local channel, either make it like the w-space local or make it delay jump ins for a bit.
ry ry	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:36:00 - [58] 1. arties are rubbish. 2. tranis considerably better than the other ships in it's class. 3. nerf rook ECM (not really).
Vir Hellnamin Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:37:00 - [59] 1) Dreads, Supercaps (both have the Minmatar, Caldari vs. Amarr, Gallente split in balance - not that much of a problem in carriers, except Chimera just sucks.) 2) T2 ammo vs Faction ammo - latter is just better in every way. 3) Arties - sniping; too many HP boosts vs. Alpha... give alpha back; or some flavour. -- "Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]
Miyamoto Shigesuke Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:38:00 - [60] 1 - Boost individual 0.0 rewards. Raise true sec status, and put rats in every belt with faster respawn rate. 2 - Make missiles do maximum damage to the ships of their size, while they are moving at top speed without overdrive/AB. Precision missiles should do maximum damage to the ships using AB. Target painters should not be mandatory to hit moving ships of the same size. 3 - Boost the bonus of the specialized Remote Sensor Disruptor ships (30% to ECM vs 5% to RSD?) at least to double.

Yuri Christonovitch PodPal	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:40:00 - [61] My frustration goes to the webbing ability: 1) Rapier/Huggin should get a web strengt bonus instead of target painting. 2) SW-900 drones are totally useless what-so-ever because of (FALCON) stacking penalty. Using more than 5 SW-900 drones should be a valid tactic, but is totally pointless. 3) Web's should have a more immidiate effect. The reduction of speed is to slow, so he will glide out of your webbing range. Thanks for reading.
DJTheBaron Caldari FinFleet KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:50:00 - [62] #1 Problem - POS & SOV The only real way to attack a space holding entity is to take their space. There are no mini goals apart from having manpower in the area to disrupt day to day activity and logistics. Destructable station services arent achievable by small gangs. #2 Problem - Close Range Combat Short range setups have great difficulty in fitting gank, tank and propulsion. Gallente & blasters, in particular as their ships are generally unable to fit their best weaponary and have room for a plate, rep and propulsion. The cap requirement on blasters, with an active rep after a long mwd burn + mwd penalty to compensate for their super short range often leaves them dry, and injectors also takeup precious grid. Caldari sacrifice tank for the ewar nessary to lock down the target on top of a speed boost. Heavy assaults work like a bad afterthought and dont do enough damage, rockets suffer the same problem. Amarr are doing quite well given that pulses have just the right range to adapt, and their ships dont seem to suffer the fitting issues of gallente or caldari. Minmatar are quite reasonable actually. #3 Problem - Faction Warfare Give it a point, theres also next to no rewards for the risk involved. __________ "The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing"
Morel Nova z3r0 Gravity	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:50:00 - [63] Edited by: Morel Nova on 17/04/2009 12:55:23 1. rapier needs a web strength bonus as well as its range bonus (i.e bring the effect closer to what it was before web nerf for rapiers) being dual webbed in an inty by a rapier doesnt even scare me anymore which is sad. 2. boost damp effectiveness of dedicated ships (lachesis, arazu etc), having 2 damps give same effect as 3 damps does now would make them useful again and offset the common sensor booster on targets. 3. as stated multiple times, t2 close range ammo is a joke and needs buffing, particularly for railguns/blasters where you get no advantages at all. hail is pretty ok due to its dmg-type advantages. conflag crystals also have a (very small) target usage due to dmg types, but might need looking at. 4. make non-ecm ewar drones useful. ECM drones are fine, but give me a reason to bring TD drones or neut drones etc. would add a lot of interesting tactics and setups. Put in space whales!
Isil Rahsen Gallente Ferrum Superum	Posted - 2009.04.17 12:56:00 - [64] 1- Blasters need buffed due to web changes, either boost tracking/optimal or introduce web bonus for blaster oriented ships. 2- Projectiles need buffed as well. Moar Alpha for arties, a little moar dps for autocannons to compensate for fighting in falloff. (I really like minmatar but just can bring myself to train them because of their gimped weapons) 3- Pulse Lasers need to have either tracking nerfed or optimal range adjusted as currently there is no reason to train any other short (I use this term lightly with pulses) range weapon system because they are totally outclassed by pulses.
Mohenna	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:02:00 - [65] Rockets (awful explosion speed, bad dps, actual range a lot lower than speed*fly time...) Destroyers (could use some love and imho the cormorant should be missile based) Rockets. Yes they suck!! Boost them twice!
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:02:00 - [66] * me puts on asbestos suit and hires a fire brigade to stand ready for the incoming flames. 1. Tech 1 Production - asside from ships, why is this even in game? with the number of mission runners there is a huge oversupply of tech 1 mods on the market and one could make a living off of buying up all the mods that they put up for UNDER mineral cost. This makes it near impossible for any new player to try and make a living at being a producer. They cant sell anything that they make because they pay more for the minerals to build the items than the item will generally sell for on the market. 2. Tech 1 laser crystals - Why is amarr the only race that has no ammo worries? Currently one Multifreq s crystal has the same mineral worth as 40 rounds of antimater s. yeah the lasers use a more cap but they still never run out of ammo. They should degrade just like the faction and tech 2 crystals. granted it should not degrade as fast as faction or tech 2 but it makes no sense that amarr tech 1 ammo is the only ammo in game once you have some you never have to replace it (unless you lose your ship) while every other race is constantly replacing ammo (hybrid, projectile, and missiles). not to mention the reload time disparity between crystals and every other ammo type. 3. Shield tanking vs Armor Tanking - while yes it is possible to make a stronger shield tank if you have the right ship and or the right officer modules, it is always easier to make a cap stable armor tank. Besides with armor tank mods all bing low slot you choose between tank and DPS but all the active shield mods are mid slot items makeing you choose between tank, Ewar, tackling, speed boosting (AB or MWD), and effective cap recharge for sustaining your tank (cap power relays negatively affect shield boosters while cap recharges have no affect on armor reps aside from making them easier to maintain).
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:08:00 - [67] 1.) Mining mineral output vs module reprocessing output. Mining should be the major source of minerals by a significant proportion. It should be some 75% not the less than 60% it is now. 2.) Faction item balancing. This includes faction ships and modules. Either make some of them cheaper or more effective. For example most modules in the Gallente LP store. The cost of faction ships compared to their abilities and pirate faction ships' stats. Everything concerning LP stores and faction items could use some time investigating. 3.) Tier 1 Battlecruisers. They need a more distinctive role from the tier 2 BCs. Especially the Prophecy and Cyclone. Tank and gank are not different roles by themselves, they are just different ends of the same stick. Could add more but you asked for three only. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Areo Hotah Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:11:00 - [68] Edited by: Areo Hotah on 17/04/2009 13:12:00 1.) Destroyers are not used at all in PVP: buff them. 2.) Minmatar big stuff: a.) large artillery is the worst sniping gun: clip size, dps, tracking, RoF. Only advantange is no cap use, and decent alpha, but that hardly matters. b.) Large autocannons are just pathetic: blasters do way more damage, and the range on pulses is insane. c.) Naglfar: nuff said. d.) Tempest doesn't really have a role anymore. 3.) Ewar balance in general: target painters suck (they should be way more effective to make frigs hit easy by cruiser-sized weapons, cruisers by BS, BS by dreads, esp. when used on the specialized ships), damps suck, even on the specialized ships, and ECM is still by far the best ewar; being jammed is just gay, and nothing you can do about it (maybe overheat your ECCM).
Renox Gallente Celestial Apocalypse death from above..	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:19:00 - [69] 1) Blasters. They are near useless at the moment. 2) Titans. They are simply bad gameplay. The primary problem is the DD. It is a major fun spoiler as fights often don't happen because either one side gets DD leaving the grunts of both sides blueballed or never engage in fear of DDs. Also the jump bridge to some degree. It offers an incredible amount of manoeuvrability especially as it can be use repeatedly. 3) POS warfare. More a redesign than balancing needed... Shooting pos simply isn't fun. Sov should be done some other way (which might be in the works?) "what are you gonna do with your pixels in your wallet when the server goes down is up to you." - Lilan
Cutie Chaser Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:20:00 - [70] 1.) T1 FRIGS! Seriously, min and amarr have useful tier3 tech1 frigs, while calderi and gallente do not +1 turret, +4 pg on Tristan +2 turret, -2 launcher, + 2 pg on Merlin (4 turrets on ship w/ no dmg bonus is ok), reduce max speed by 30 m/s to reduce usefulness as blasterboat 2.) Damn, rockets really suck. They are supposed to be close range high dps weapons, what happened to that? 3.) T2 ammo blows, why not just remove the penalties? The price of using it + the t2 turrets to fire it will balance it out as lots of people will still elect to use faction ammo. *** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers.

Cherab Minmatar Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:24:00 - [71] 1. Large Projectiles. lol artillery 2. Gallente recons need extra 5% damp bonus 3. Tempest needs fixing 4. rapier and/or huginn need web strength bonus instead of TP 5. Large Blasters need tracking boost with recent web changes
JadeMako Industrial Mite	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:26:00 - [72] 1) Large Blasters buffed 2) Large Projectiles buffed 3) EWAR that is not ECM buffed
Yankunytjatjara	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:30:00 - [73] Originally by: Mohenna [list=1] Rockets (awful explosion speed, bad dps, actual range a lot lower than speed*fly time...) 2) Amarr laser ships with a bonus to cap have basically one bonus less: we can deal with cap, make it a range/dps/tracking bonus instead. Whiners: there's already much nerf around, boost your weapon instead! 3) give us many more keyboard shortcuts!
Kirzath Sinister Elite Raining Doom	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:30:00 - [74] Edited by: Kirzath on 17/04/2009 13:35:09 1. Agility. As a focused tackle pilot, I believe having to sacrifice all survivability going from an interceptor to an interdictor in order to catch cruisers on gates is rather silly. 2. Tech 2 ammo. The penalties on short range, high damage T2 ammo - specially the tracking penalty - makes them useless at their intended ranges to begin with, and also makes them useless in general. 3. This last pick is a bit biased. The Malediction needs to be looked at. It's locking range is lower than any of the other tackle interceptors (22.5km versus 25km on the others), making a Sensor Booster or Signal Amplifier mandatory if you want to make full use of the tackle range bonus. On a same note, the rocket bonus is pointless on the Malediction: as a tackle ceptor, the only thing it should be shooting at are drones, and rockets can't even hit MWDing drones to begin with. Thank god for those 3 turret hardpoints though. These two things combined make the Malediction subpar.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:33:00 - [75] Edited by: Korrakas on 17/04/2009 13:34:22 Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) 2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...) 3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used) your choices are so wrong on so many levels it makes me cry Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Korako Kosakami Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:35:00 - [76] 1. ECM Drones Make them just break lock. Dunno bout 2 and 3, some faction ships being terrible maybe?
Vrabac Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:36:00 - [77] 1) EW drones: ECM ones are incredibly handy, target painting ones are useful when TP is needed (although the stacking issues - last time I checked - still create funny situations where 2 heavy drones are much better than 5 mids which tbh makes no sense, since it pretty much makes existance of any smaller than heavy TP drones pointless), the rest of the EW drones are utterly useless. Balancing this to make them all remotely equally useful or useless would be nice. 2) Faction ships. Some are very good, some are pure rubbish. Ashimmu and Cruor come to mind. Ashimmu has too little grid and mid slots for a meaningful fit that would make use of its bonuses, while getting web range bonus on a frig that will have 5-6km range for neutralizer is quite silly. 3) Minmatar battleships except the phoon. Tempest really needs looking into imo. Making it a real shield tank, or adding a turret. Something to make it viable in roles other than sniping. Maelstrom... Hard to point the finger at something specific but it pretty much sucks. Meh dmg with 3 dmg modules, and active tank bonus which is mostly of limited use in pvp. On the other hand low dps and tracking of artilleries make it a bad mission ship where active tanking would count for something, while low effective range of ACs and low speed it can reach with AB make using ACs in missions not really possible.
Thebro Nobrunder Schrodinger's Renegades	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:37:00 - [78] God this is hard... 1. Sensor damps are not very effective. For Neuts, ECM, and tracking disruptors can be very effective whereas damps are difficult to use well. Worse in pvp where everyone is at <10km. 2. BS/Dread/Carrier docking games. This is a no risk scenario. 3. Passive shield tanks? Drake is a good example of this. mediocre damage with solid tank and completely immune to neuts.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:38:00 - [79] Originally by: Count Helmchen T1 Ships 1) tier 1 Battlecruisers ... where do i start? they are the worst ships n term of damage, fitting, bonus etc in the hole galaxy!!!!! 2) Commandships (Nighthawk f.e.) need some love, speaking of give them more pg and cpu to allow them to fit a proper fitting RR Gangs 1) to strong in its current form Snipers 1) to strong in its current form more to come Another one that makes my eyes sting from the fail Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Kingwood Amarr Defile.	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:43:00 - [80] Too many races, ships and weapon systems. Just remove all the races except one (I am strongly in favor of Caldari). Maybe then the nerfbat can stop swinging.

Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:43:00 - [81] 1. Faction Warfare Rewards: There aren't any, sadly. Would be nice to see some kind of LP reward for capturing plexes / systems, and for killing enemy ships. I'm in a corp that is currently involved in FW, but we don't fly out very often because, well, why bother? If we just want Pew Pew, there's low and null sec. 2. Hawk: What a sorry excuse for an assault frigate, it can't even out-DPS many of the T1 Caldri frigates. Vengeance could use a little love, too. The root problem, however, may lie in rockets themselves. 3. Undocking: There have been several times when I have undocked and then been shot down AND podded before the 'Black Screen of Death' disappears and I can react to the situation. I don't mind getting shot after I undock, but I do mind that I didn't even have a chance to activate a module, or attempt to warp, or even see my overview. Whatever you do, don't nerf beer. I will be sad.
MyOwnSling Gallente Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:43:00 - [82] Edited by: MyOwnSling on 17/04/2009 13:46:58 1. T2 close range turret ammo (it is currently not anywhere near worth using) 2. Assualt frigs and the missing 4th bonus (this class has been missing a 4th bonus for years) 3. EWAR drones aside from ECM drones are nearly useless due to stacking penalty (SD, TP, web drones) ------------- Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face...
Julia Venatrix	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:45:00 - [83] 1) Money Eve is a cash-rich environment. It is easy to generate revenue from hisec missions - even starting with a rookie ship on level 1s. One implication is that distinction between various T1 meta levels is lost - as with the funds available to most players in New Eden, there is no reason to consider using the meta levels less than 4. Suggestions: Nerf the loot tables to make better T1 modules rarer. Apply damage to looted modules. Make more loot drops be Metal Scraps. Add a new meta level -1 "broken" module - which cannot be used or repaired but which scraps as a T1 module of the same type. Fix the loot tables so that factionally-appropriate items are dropped by each destroyed ship. 2) Lowsec Rebalance the LP and cash rewards from agents for missions so that lowsec travel, missions, and agents are more valuable. 3) Rockets. Make 'em scary. --- Some days you are the pigeon, and some the statue.
Krem daBrut Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:52:00 - [84] 1.) T2 Ammo, mostly the high damage ammo. remove/lower the penalties. some of them have 4 different penalties o.0 2.) Target Painter needs a buff. Maybe give them a seconde effect,like negate target speed. 3.) Artillery - increase the alpha, keep Dps - increase the clip size - tracking computer/ tracking enhancer should also give falloff bonus
Oxystar	Posted - 2009.04.17 13:57:00 - [85] 1: Many crap smaller Amarr ships Maller(cap bonus crap), Omen(generally crap), Coercer(1mid), Retribution(1mid), Prophecy(cap bonus crap, every stat worse than harbinger). 2: Sovereignty You are too strong once you establish yourself and new allianches have hard time getting a foot in. 3: Insurance Screws up market prises, insurance fitting, no logic in it.
Rhaegor Stormborn H A V O C Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:05:00 - [86] 1) Blobs 2) Titans 3) Jump Bridges & Cyno Jammers
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:09:00 - [87] I like the general balance of things but I'll just pick some things that really stand out in my mind based on other posts on this thread. 1. Level 4 missions - need some changes to be a somewhat competitive activity. Not necessarily a high-sec specific change, but a general reworking. Ideally they should pay less when more people are doing them in a certain area, like how most other resources must be shared by players. I could discuss this for days on end though so I'll leave it at that for now... 2. T2 ammo - much of it is useless or hardly worth the penalties. Hybrid javelin charges and precision missiles come to mind. Though it could all use a good look-over. 3. The Hawk - just awful. Very tight fitting, vastly outdamaged by a T1 frigate of the same race with the same weapon system. Please administer first aid to this poor thing (okay I confess, this was a personal choice ). Though perhaps all AFs could use some attention, they never did seem to get that "boost" that was being talked about. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:10:00 - [88] 1) Highsec Lvl 4 missions: I understand that there is no much hope on any changes here but I want to believe =) 2) Artilleries 3) Tech 3 diversity: subsystems of the same type are often very similar or one is clearly superior to the others. P.S.: During last year you've done a great job on balancing so I can't think of any really major issues. So maybe it's a good time to introduce some changes or new abilities to expand general combat gameplay?
Kyle Cataclysm Blue.	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:18:00 - [89] 1) Large Projectile Weapons; mediocre DPS and poor alpha 2) Sovereignty 3) Mineral Supply; nocxium abundant in drone space, no high-yield tritanium in 0.0
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:18:00 - [90] I hope CCP can figure by this thread that NO ARTIES ARE NOT FINE!!!

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:20:00 - [91] 1: Hisec. The amount of time, effort and skill applied to receive a net profit is far higher in hisec than anywhere else. Some fundamental changes could be: - Tax all hisec activities, so players become more aware of the cost of their security. Nobody should be safe for free. - Editing to the loot reprocessing table, so that less midrange and high-end minerals can be taken from loot, increasing the value of losec/nulsec ore. - Preventing battleships and barges from operating in the more secure systems (1.0-0.8), thus insuring that these zones aren't stripmined/plagued by higher-end characters. It would also create a 'skill barrier' for those who take part in hisec wars, as victim corps could guarantee a fight in smaller ships. - Decrease the net profit of level 4's, to be only 10% higher than level 3's (including bounties, loot, salvage). 2. Losec. Besides proposed changes above, losec is still unnaturally borked due to changes in the past and their long-lasting effect. - Increase the number and density of losec systems. If it is the slums, there should be far more of them than hisec systems. This, however, also helps allow for more security in losec for the average player, as they can spread out. - Introduce a means for players to defend themselves without taking sec hits, by way of faction affiliation and changes to criminal mechanics. - Losec missions need to be reverted to hit-and-run style mechanics, instead of the classic 'sit in one place and destroy a bunch of NPC's'. This would help a small bit with those players being preyed upon due to the hazards of their job. 3. Nulsec. Many systems are next to worthless, and the method of defending systems means larger corps need to hold entire constellations to stay profitable. - Allow for corporations to 'hire' agents with one of the empires (subject to corporate standing), to be placed in their stations. Those agents would provide a string of unique missions which are related in story with the Empire, but don't promise an empires presence. Allow said missions to give slow standing gain for the Empire that corp aligns with. - With the possibility of using missions as an income source (which are infinite and repeatable), many more players can survive off of the same system, unlike before where it was often one ratter per system. - With improvements to loot reprocessing as mentioned above, nulsec mining operations can now become far more valuable and necessary to ALL players. - Increase the number and variety of player-owned-structures that can be mounted in space, including stationary fighter bases, listening outposts, sentry guns, and the like. Allow a corporation to own a system with much the same mechanics that Empires own their space. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
JonnyKay Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:20:00 - [92] Edited by: JonnyKay on 17/04/2009 14:22:20 I think the hottest mentioned issue in this thread has to be the problems with minmatar BS/Capitals and Weapon systems! 1) Large Projectiles underpowered: i) Artillery sucks, lower dps than other weapons of same type (tiny clip size is partially to blame). ii) Autocannons smell in comparison to other weapon systems of same type. (fighting in falloff majority of time means far less dps). 2) Minmatar BS + Capital ships: i) Tempest has been an underpowered BS for a long long time. ii) Minmatar capital ships are widely considered to be the worst of all the races. 3) I know this one is just out of the oven, but the new stealth bombers need to either have their cloaked speed bonus back OR reduce the cooldown on recloaking, it leaves the ship waaaay too open making it useless.
Aya Vandenovich	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:22:00 - [93] 1) Tier One BC Stats. Their mass, agility, and base speed stats have always been exactly the same as their tier two counterparts, despite them having less armour, shields, etc. 2)Armour plating. Rolled tungsten is the only type of plate worth fitting. Even the T2 variation is inferior. 3)Amarr tanking ships. With the exception of the Abaddon, and possibly the Punisher, the Maller and the Prophecy are inferior due to the way the game has shifted away from the emphasis on tanking. Tanking is generally worthless unless you are able to do a decent amount of damage as well (this is highlighted by the superiority of the HAM drake over a fully-tanked Drake). The Prophecy in particular was rendered almost obsolete by the arrival of the harbinger, as were the other tier one BCs. Somewhere In England
Fistjaw Interface	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:27:00 - [94] 1. webbing drones being too slow to catch anything that wants webbing 2. same goes for target painting drones tbh. 3. neut drones apparently not managing to break the passive cap recharge of the majority of ships. basically look again at ewar drones. ECM drones are actually okay, but give us a reason to take a variety of the things!
Vavrin Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:32:00 - [95] 1.rockets 2.Prophecy- Should be sniper boat 3.Cyclone- Should be sniper boat
Cinimrat Amarr Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:34:00 - [96] Assault Frigates They need their fourth bonus. A bonus to MWD/AB speed would rock here (just something like 7.5% per level wold be fine Faction Ship Cost Many of them need their LP cost adjusted downward significantly, mostly cruisers and frigates. I figure cruisers should cost about as much as T1 Battlecruisers (~20 million ISK), and frigates should cost about as much as cruisers ~5 mil. Currently their cost is prohibitive. Faction Ships in General Many of them are just unexceptional in general, especially compared to their T2 cousins. They need an overall buff. Also, I want more of them! Tiered Ships To be honest, I don't really like the ideas of having tiered ships. While cool in theory, the end result of a linear progression of EHP and slots from less to more reduces the variation in ship choices (battleships are alright since there are only three of them, each with distinct roles). Keep their cost approximately the same but increase their number of slots and EHP to that of their tier three counterparts. I know it's asking for a lot, but you should at least think about it over the long term. Meta-Level Items The progression of meta levels from 1 to 4, currently, means that just about everything other than T1 and best named modules are worthless as anything other than minerals. Meta levels should not go from worst to best, each should offer unique advantages. For example (guns): Meta Level 0 = Standard T1 Item Meta Level 1 = More Damage Meta Level 2 = Better Tracking Meta Level 3 = More Range Meta Level 4 = Lower Fitting Requirements Destroyers They need better-defined roles and more survivability (the same is true for interdictors imo). Also a second destroyer for every race. Please? Pretty please?
Melissa Coldstorm	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:37:00 - [97] -Agro mechanics. This includes docking games, logging off, jumping into another system resetting agro counter, self-destructing to deny killmails (don't really care if ship and loot gets destroyed). -I would really to see one weapon/module/whatever (gravity-well finder) to have a small chance of finding non-cov-ops cloaked ships, especially some that go AFK for hours. The bigger the ship, the easier to find. I don't really care that you warp to a safe and cloak to get out of danger, every couple of minutes warping to a new safe spot, but sitting in one for hours while you are going out to the cinema or pub is a tad silly. Ideally a new tier 2 destroyer which Tech 2 version will become a hunter-killer which can fit the cloak-hunting module. Once again, ships with cov-ops cloak are fine, but every supercap has a cloak, and ninja ratting ravens. -Boost to some underused ships like destroyers, Pilgrim, some tier 1 BC,
Absalom Marathon The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:40:00 - [98] 1. Highsec/lowsec isk-making balance. Atm iskmaking in highsec is way to easy and there is not enough reward in lowsec, even with those new BS beltspawns. Either raise isk/lp from lowsec lvl 4 missions more or nerf highsec lvl 4 missions more. 2. Large Blasters. They do awesome damage in optimal, but it's nearly impossible to get in that range and get the full dmg potential, iow = they only do good damage in eft. Either get them to reach further with opt dmg but keep them 'close range' (raise optimal, lower falloff) or get them even more damage than atm. 3. Large artys. Do I even need to say anything? More clipsize at least.
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:42:00 - [99] 1) T2 ammo 2) Minmatar recon 3) Level 4 missions in high-sec
ThrashPower Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:45:00 - [100] 1: Learning Skills, remove them (figure out a way to reimburse the few players that have trained them) 2: Mining, needs isk boost. npc buyorders maybe? 3: Lowsec, npc 0.0 is better in every way... lowsec needs boost in rewards or nerf in risk.

Gneeznow North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:45:00 - [101] 1) ecm drones - they are way too effective 2) titans - huge numbers of them now, I've given up on 0.0 warfare because its just a sequence of doomsdays these days 3) large projectiles / barrage - I believe barrage could use some more falloff, and large projectiles could use a boost
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:49:00 - [102] 1. Blasters- specifically large blasters: not enough peak DPS when compared to other weapon systems, lack of tracking and ability to hit targets within optimal range. 2. Level 4 missions in highsec. Enough said. 3. Local removal. 0.0/lowsec need to have local in delayed mode, if not all of empire. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Cyanthia Roamstar	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:51:00 - [103] 1) I'd have to agree with Minmatar artillery. They could all use a small damage increase but large artillery needs it the most. 2) Rockets are like Defender missiles in that no one ever uses them. They definately need a damage increase. 3) I STRONGLY disagree with changing L4 mission rewards as it would have serious repercussions on the current market economy. The cost of rigs would skyrocket and the price of minerals would fall as more people would shift to mining to make ISK. Even the number of ratable belts would change as ratting would become a much more popular career decision. Empire and Null-sec shouldn't be about making the most ISK, rather they should be classified by those who wish to carebear and those who wish to pvp. There should be a way to make decent ISK in empire and I don't see anything wrong with people who choose to run L4 missions. It does take quite a bit of work to raise one's faction to reach that point at any rate.
Foulque	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:51:00 - [104] Rather than a list of things to nerf, there are some things could do with a buff. 1. Minmatar Caps & BS, nohting remarkably wrong with them they just need a boost. 2. Non Caldari recons, I mean really just compare the power of the even now balanced Falcon to any other Recon and it's pretty plain to see something's not right. 3. Oh and obligatory nerf Titans, all they do is STOP fights. ________
merge nine	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:55:00 - [105] Such a long list of issues to choose from... #1 ECM drones need to be nerfed quite a bit, maybe half strength. Right now they're a get out of jail free card. #2 Gallente Recons need their damp bonuses buffed, 10% per level should be good. #3 I think blasters need a big improvement since the web nerf uncovered their lack of tracking and their DPS sucks balls compared to the other guns plus their lack of range.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.17 14:59:00 - [106] Edited by: Raimo on 17/04/2009 15:05:21 Edited by: Raimo on 17/04/2009 15:02:49 1) Blasters and blaster ships. The speed nerf hit blaster cruisers and up pretty hard, the time it takes to apply damage that is marginally better than for example the much better ranged "close range" laser damage has pretty much gimped blaster boats in gang use. See next point for a problem in solo use. 2) The "3 mid tackling problem" Especially a problem on blaster boats, the new need to fit a MWD, Web and a short-ranged scrambler instead of a long point has severely gimped the soloing ability of these ships as they cannot tackle past 11km, allowing most targets to simply warp away after gating even after the ship agilities have been adjusted. Especially problematic on the Thorax, Deimos, Brutix (usually needs its 4th mid for cap) but also a problem on the blaster frigs even though the Ranis and Ishkur are pretty great otherwise. OF course this concerns the megathron and to some extent the Hype as well even though I've long since dismissed soloing in a Blaster BS... Also interconnected to this problem is the "anti ceptor" frigate fit popular on rifters etc. A rifter (et al) with T1 AB+web+scram can kill an MWD+web+scram blaster taranis, ishkur, enyo or incursus with ease, the only one who can counter fit with anything else except the suicidal on blaster boats- AB is the ranis which can fit MWD+AB+Scram but that gimps it in "normal" combat and hurts its DPS a lot... I don't know how this could be fixed short of reversing the MWD/Scram relationship but it is very frustrating for the blaster frigate/ cruiser pilot. (Actually, giving blaster boats back their 90% webs would be ideal but probably would ensue in eve-o uproar) 3) T2 ammo, especially the shortest range kind like Void. It should be better in practical use than faction antimatter, like no tracking penalties etc... ---
Not InTheFace	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:01:00 - [107] A) Level four missions need to be nerfed big time. Way too much reward for no risk, plus the loot drops mess with the value of mining and industry and all that. Loot tables need to be changed so that players account for most of the T1 stuff produced, and that miners are the ones producing minerals, not the mission runners. B) Blasters need to be fixed. Right now they're pretty crap, particularly the damage output. C) T2 ammo needs to be fixed. The short ranged ammo is terrible and there is no reason to ever use it when compared to faction ammo. Leave faction where it is and buff T2 ammo. Maybe remove the tracking penalties and buff the damage? Make it different from faction.
Hatsumi Kobayashi Balls Deep Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:01:00 - [108] 1. Rebalancing of some weapon systems, rockets and artillery come to mind. T2 ammo is also subpar compared to faction ammo. 2. Supercapitals need to be relooked and have their roles clearly defined. 3. The whole sovereignty system needs rethinking ======
Chris Sandstorm Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:01:00 - [109] 1. Naglfar 2. Large Projectiles 3. Tempest
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:06:00 - [110] Edited by: murder one on 17/04/2009 15:05:52 1- Blasters need more damage to offset the range advantages of the other guns, particularly lasers. Don't change pulses from where they are now, they're great. Just buff blasters. 2- NPC corps need a nerf. All players over 6 months old should be automatically migrated into secondary NPC corps that are fully wardeccable. 3- Remove insurance for all characters over 6 months old, and for any/all PVP losses.

Mortis Tyrathlion Amarr Ghost Festival	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:06:00 - [111] Assault frigate fourth bonus. That they still have only three even after the superfluous resist bonus was removed, when every other T2 ship in the game has four, and T3 have six, is ridiculous... Faction ships. The Navy ones (with some exceptions) are acceptable if for no other reason than cheapness, but with the sole exception of Sansha and the Bhaalgorn, you're splashing out huge amounts for vanishingly little gain. Putting the same fit for a Vindicator on a Hyperion produces a better tank and more damage, for less than a fifth of the price. Of course Faction ships aren't meant to be the be-all and end-all, but that's why they're damned expensive. Asking for them to be at least competitive with T2, considering the similar or larger prices, isn't that unreasonable. Artillery. 'nuff said.

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:07:00 - [112] Good stuff, keep it coming. I haven't counted or anything but the main issues seem to be: ECM - Mainly ECM Drones Tech 2 Ammo Rockets Blasters Large Artillery Remember no discussions here, and try to limit your posts to three items.

thundercl0ud	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:09:00 - [113] Level 4 missions are too good. Blasters need more damage. Artillery needs more alpha and larger clip size. Maybe double the alpha, reduce ROF by half and double clip size?
Missy Miner85	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:09:00 - [114] 1. Minmatar Battleships. Maelstrom somewhat and the biggest issue the Tempest 2. Large Projectiles. Artillery need a lot bigger alpha and large AC could do with a damage boost. 3. Naglfar. No versatility here, its all about gank and tank and the Naglfar is lacking in both. Yes i know its vertical, but that alone, while being awesome isnt enough sadly.
touch myboobies	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:11:00 - [115] 1. BLASTERS. 2. BLASTERS. 3. BLASTERS.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:11:00 - [116] 1. Low-Sec / Level 4 Agents Despite CCP's best effort of using the low-sec carrot, in the form of improved NPCs, improved minerals, improved game experience overall; pilots are still hugging high-sec. I'd like to see CCP forcing pilots into low-sec more often. At the bluntest implementation, this could simply be moving all level 4 agents to 0.4. However, I'd like to see something more dynamic. I'd like to see agents respond to game events, for example if Caldari are doing badly in Factional Warfare (lol), then NPC agents should send more combat missions towards the front - a bit of PvE in relation to larger events. Another example would be a sudden change in the market for a particular good; more Raven's sold in Torrinos than normal (or destroyed in EC-P8R), send hauler agents that way with robotics, etc to help the stations. Hell, even have some agents which send people to NPC stations in 0.0. 2. POS / Sovereignty I'm not going to regurgitate what the CSM has already discussed in relation to this (planet sovereignty and planetary development), only lend my support to it. CCP really needs to balance 0.0 in general. 3. Factional Warfare / World Shaping FW is a joke, it's reportedly laggier than 0.0 warfare, and I hear that practically nobody is involved in it anymore. What I do the rest of the time
Alisanos Infinity Enterprises Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:13:00 - [117] 1. Naglfar (horrible tank for having such crappy damage output) 2. New effects with Sensor booster(the first one deployed with Apocrypha was fine), ECCM, POS bubble should be reduced in visual effect 3. Caldari Missile Damage bounses (should be all damage types not just Kinetic)
Mafaka	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:14:00 - [118] 1) currently game involves or starting to involve a lot of grinding of isk for the ships , bc- 40 mill, bs 60-150 mill, t2 cruser 100+ mill, cap 1.3 billion and so on. the game becomes very bouring when u have to grind for few weeks before u can fight for 1 day becasue missions are boring and the same , after a wile its drives nuts. i propose to reduce all components requirments on blueprints by 50% so that they will beocme 50% cheaper to make or increase the isk payed in missions and rats bounties. more expensive the ship - more grinding - the game becoming like WOWcraft - pathetic - dont let it . 2) instead of chaging some ship and getting us pointless t3 ships , why not make the game more interesting by making pve more interesting by improving missions, agents, rats and other already commony used complexes. make them more surprising , difficult , profitable, random , because some times i get same angel extravaganza 3 times one after another and believe me - its not fun anymore when u play over 1 year. 3) capital ships - whats up with the purpose of capital ships ? u train for them for a 1 year and u only can fly in low sec - is undertstandable , but what is the actuall purpose? POS bashing and thats it? where else we can use capital ship? i want to see Missions created for capital ship in 00 where players can take them out in fleet and make some dicent isk to support themself. when u have a mothership - u just stuck in POS for all eternaty - its not save to fly , and to do anything. its very cool to have it , but its kinder pointless when u constantly have to look over your shoulder and u cant really do anything super special with it. u train for a carrier for 1year and what do u get??? 15 drons - max skills ? dps close to 1300 and thats it? sacrificing other things. t2 bs gives u 1100 dps and it cost less and has more advantages and uses ( golem , paladin) i want to see bonus changed from 1x dron per lvl on capitals and 3x on motherships to 2x active drons per lvl for carries and 4x for motherships, i want armor/shield maintance bots to be considered inactive drons and take no effective bandwidth so u can lanch them at any time with other drons ( 5 max) make new missions for capital ships in 00 space and outposts - becasue most of the time there is nothing to do in 00 - ratting just does not cut it anymore
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:14:00 - [119] Edited by: Xelios on 17/04/2009 15:15:02 1) Minmatar ships/weapons above BC size (specifically the Tempest, artillery, and more importantly the capitals) 2) Faction ships 3) ECM Drones
Shadowsword Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:14:00 - [120] 1/ Low-sec risk/reward. The cause of the lack of population is simple: too many pirates, because of gates. It's like, a pack of tigers in the jungle having their diner served at the same place everytime, instead of having to hunt for it. Nerf gate camping, that will repopulate low-sec, and the prey/predator ratio will balance itself out naturally later. Ransoming has more or less died because of gate camping, and this s bad. 2/ Dysprosium. Alchemy is a big fail at the moment, it's only result has been to boost cadmium prices. Either drastically cut the amount of cadmium needed, or replace the dyspro by technetium or neodynium in some of the reactions. 3/ 0.0 ore fields. Lot's of systems in 0.0 have really crappy asteroid belts, no different from what you can find in low-sec. yet, with 0.0 rules (bubbles, no penalty at all for the pvper), those systems are much more dangerous. Something needs to be done there. I hope the mining overhaul (Soon(tm)) will correct it. ------------------------------------------

Raukho Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:16:00 - [121] 1. whines 2. whines 3. whines about high sec missions by 0.0 moonfarmers
Myrkala Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:17:00 - [122] 1. Projectiles > They need something, after all indirect changes to them both AC and Artillery, the Large and XL variants in particular. We still want them capless to keep them different. Maybe a big increase in falloff. 2. Minmatar Capitals > Naglfar the obvious issue with training time and a split weapon system, in effect a highslot is essentially wasted, let the players choose between 4 turrets or 3 launchers and one turret, or get move a high to a low or a mid and let them choose between 3 turrets and 3 launchers. Also the "two" bonuses are essentially one damage bonus over all, but the Moros gets a (massive) bonus to drone damage and hitpoints, a much more useful bonus resulting in making it much more versatile than other dreads in many situations. (788 dps at 75+30 km optimal with Wardens). In effect the Moros which does more damage than the Naglfar gets a bonus to all its sieged weapons damage PLUS its supporing drone damage, while the Naglfar principally really only gets "one" damage bonus. If you do decide to change the Naglfar, its second bonus should be actually "useful" not just redundant like it is now. Like a ROF and DMG mod to both Projectiles or Citadels to boost its actual damage output or give it something useful like the Moros has. Maybe you move a high to a mid, give it one damage bonus for all its siege weapons and then a tanking bonus? 7.5% shieldboost per level. One thing I believe is that because of mixed weapon systems it ends up lacking in fittings because of citadel torp launcher cpu usage. Well that is my opinion. 3. Risk vs Reward. > Highsec L4's and local. I want to see a change here ! "Ruppie ain't no puppie."
Junko Ni'Kan	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:21:00 - [123] 1. Naglfar - Clearly not on the same level as the other dreads. Needs a major boost. 2. Claw - Locking range 3. Tempest
Augeas	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:24:00 - [124] 1. Scorch. It's too good. Nerf DPS, range or tracking. Or all. 2. Faction ships. Fix their fittings and bonuses pls. 3. 0.0 risk vs. reward. Currently it's far too much reward for far too little risk, thanks to infallible local and massive NAP-blocks.
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:25:00 - [125] 1) Sovereignty: with all the related mind numbing and tedious related issues (blobs, timezones & titans etc). 2) Active vs EHP/Buffer tanking: this basically comes down to active tanking being poor for PVP in almost every situation (even dreads are mainly buffer tanked these days, see problem 1). 3) Increasing lack of overall focus and goals in game design and balance by *CCP: ships & modules that do not fit their descriptions, design and balance too driven by public consensus (cough* vocal minorities). If anything this thread is potentially as harmful as it is beneficial. --
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:30:00 - [126] 1. ECM drones, those little buggers are way too effective. 2. Large projectile weapons/minnie BS, they just subpar. 3. ISK printing moons --------------------------------------------- Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
RuriHoshino Minmatar Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:31:00 - [127] Warp speed bonus for the fourth subsystem??? <guinness> BRILLIANT! </guinness> Let's see, what else - LOLki (let's all make a HAC that only costs 100 times as much as the real thing!!!), how-the-***-is-it that you still* have not swapped the Phoon's *****ed base hitpoints, OPTIMAL FOR WOLF FALLOFF FOR JAG KTHX SWEET SPACECHRIST, Large ACs because we all enjoy shooting Volkswagons off in random directions ineffectually into space :V , Nidhoggur should* be the second shield tanking carrier but instead does exactly nothing well, can we just PRETEND that the Naglepuss should only be using capital artillery ohwait dual weapons systems ROCK HARD, umm what else... yeah that's all I got now. Sum up: 1. Minmatar battleships. For the Typhoon's base hitpoints, there is no conceivable reason that a ship with 7 lows and 4 mids should have more shield hitpoints than armor. Many issues with the Tempest/Maelstrom can be addressed by item 2: 2. Large ACs / Artillery. Falloff used to be cool when agility mattered. Alpha used to be cool when hitpoints mattered. Now everything is slow and ungainly, and high ehp buffers rule the day. 3. Minmatar capitals are a joke. Nidhoggur either needs more lows so it's tank is at least comparable to the Thanny or more mids so it's tank is at least comparable to the Chimmy. Right now it just has the worst capital tank period, with the selfless ability to RR both armor and shield making it an easy call for primary. Dual weapons systems on a dreadnought are just stupid, they are highly specialised ships that should be good at doing exactly one thing, adding fake "versatility" just makes the training for them take much longer without providing any benefit whatsoever.
ry ry	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:36:00 - [128] Originally by: Junko Ni'Kan 2. Claw - Locking range this. at the very least it should be able to lock out to the base range of a disruptor 2.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:38:00 - [129] Originally by: CCP Nozh Good stuff, keep it coming. I haven't counted or anything but the main issues seem to be: ECM - Mainly ECM Drones Tech 2 Ammo Rockets Blasters Large Artillery Remember no discussions here, and try to limit your posts to three items. You seems to have missed the naglfar that appears every 3 posts....
Triest Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:39:00 - [130] 1. Minmatar battleships. For the Typhoon's base hitpoints, there is no conceivable reason that a ship with 7 lows and 4 mids should have more shield hitpoints than armor. Many issues with the Tempest/Maelstrom exist, some of which are just due to large projectiles being terrible. 2. Large ACs / Artillery. Large artillery does by far the lowest DPS of the various weapon systems, at the shortest range and with the worst tracking. Something needs to be fixed, because not using capacitor is utterly not worth the trade-off. Large autocannons also do less damage than blasters and pulse lasers, without any real compensating benefits in this era of omni tanks and engagements at either long range or point blank. Falloff can't be boosted outside of rigs, and that's just silly, especially when tracking disruptors set the precedent for it to be modulated by optimal modifiers. 3. Fix the Naglfar, period. It's terrible in every way compared with the other dreads. The Nidhoggur is probably fine, but the Hel also is sub-par.

Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:41:00 - [131] 1) Heavy Interdictors vs Warp Core Stabilizers Despised as they rightly are by many, the humble stab has been ground beneath the tank treads of advancing progress, losing most utility in the process. I remember when stab monkeys fit all their lows with stabs, and I remember the big stab nerf that made stabs a pointless fit on most combat vessels. Fine and good. But then came the uncatchable capitals, which in turn brought us the scripted Hictor. Now there's a point that catches anything, and totally ignores warp core stabilizers. And I think that's a balance problem. Who fits stabs now? There's no point, because any camp with a Hictor (which is to say, most serious camps) will grab you anyway. Admittedly advances in slipperiness (blockade runner) make this less important. But I still think the infinipoint on the Hictor should be counterable in some way by sub-capitals, and a tweak to the little-used warp core stabiliser seems like the way to do it. There should be some situation in the game where fitting a stab is worth the hefty disadvantages. 2) Rigs I can't believe nobody has mentioned rigs. They are still a rare fit on anything T1 smaller than a battlecruiser, and a great many of them either don't make any sense at all for their price, or are inferior to a competing rig in every situation, and thus unused. There's been talk of putting multiple rig sizes, which would be good; but serious effort needs to go into reconsidering their effects, as well. 3) T2 Destroyers (Interdictors) These took a hard hit during one of the early speed balances (long before the big nano nerf) when they got their speed cut in half and made identical to the T1 destroyers. Subsequent introduction of the heavy interdictors then somewhat reduced the value of their unique role (with the bubble launcher). Destroyers in general need a boost as mentioned by others in this thread; but when that happens, some love to the existing T2 hulls (and possibly a new T2 destroyer for each race) would be very much in order. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:42:00 - [132] Originally by: CCP Nozh Good stuff, keep it coming. I haven't counted or anything but the main issues seem to be: ECM - Mainly ECM Drones Tech 2 Ammo Rockets Blasters Large Artillery Remember no discussions here, and try to limit your posts to three items. You missed a lot of requests for 4th Assault Frigate Bonus.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:42:00 - [133] 1. Black ops? They cant be used in combat... 2. Tech 2 modules which are worse then even meta 2 items. ex. T2 mwds. 3. Dread t2 ammo and t2 guns. Also speed tanking citadels. Sigh. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Linas IV	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:48:00 - [134] Edited by: Linas IV on 17/04/2009 15:48:58 1. Large Projectile Turrets -Large Artillery, especialy 1400s need bigger clipsize, and adjustments to Damage and Rate of fire (20% more Alpha maybe even 5% more DPS) to compensate the Low range and the Restrictions on Minmatar BS (low targeting range for example) -Large Autocannons got a too low damage at ranges bigger than 15-20km, Emp has about 10% less damage than the other closerange Charges (Multyfr. and Antim.) and Hail is basicly unusable because of the harsch tracking and fallof penalties. A possible fix would be about 15% more Base-fallof or 5-7% more DPS; fixing Hail or simply bringing Emp L and PhasedP. L in line with the other charges 2. The Tempest -Needs a sligh fix to be able to compete with the Typhoon or other tier 2 BS since the both free Highslots and the free Medslot lost their use over the last patches. (Nos-nerf; Ewar-Nerv; Neuts pointless against the Cap-Injected, Plated ships flown everywhere today) Possibilities: Bigger drone bay (125m¦ maybe), or 7th turret + a bit more powergrid (i would prefer the last) 3. Last but not least, the Naglfar Its Basicly pointless flying one if not fully tanked, because Damage in Gankfittings is not even comparable to other dreads (over 20% less), and the Ehp and Tank is well below average of the other dreads because of the bad slot layout and missing tank bonuses. (Ps: EHP is nowadays more important than ever) Fix: Either give the Nag the same med+lowslot count as the other dreads (6:6 for example + a bit of CPU) or Raise the damage well above average to compensate for the missing tank-relevant slot.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:49:00 - [135] I'm going to assume you're only talking about ships/modules and you want actual problems, instead of a wishlist for boosting treatment. 1. The signature difference between classes is too small because EVE is over bloated with ships. That is, there are too many classes crammed into a tiny space originally meant for just three. See this thread for more info (pictures missing now). Essentially I want you to widen the differences in tracking so we have more class based warfare. 2. Upon reading the thread, I was reminded about T2 ammo. The whole thing should be redone. Although I don't really consider it a huge unbalancing issue like some people, its just easy to overhaul compared to other things. People having easy and cheap access to faction ammo is a bigger problem, because it causes power creep for no reason whatsoever. 3. Rigs. Some general gripes listed here, but like ammo the whole thing could stand to be scrapped and redone. I also don't agree with people citing blasters or artillery as a problem, but both are severely affected by the broken transverse calculation in the tracking formula. That, and being let down by ships which are supposed to use these guns (Hyperion, Muninn for example). If you start a thread for each of these guns you'll be focusing on the symptoms only.
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:50:00 - [136] I assume this is about "ship balance" mainly - there are balancing issues related to game mechanics that really need work (primarily high sec profitability and sovereignty), but not sure if this is the thread for those. 1) Capitals In particular the dreads need work. The Revelation is almost always the best choice, and the Naglfar is almost always the worst choice. Dreads need some balance to make them differently useful in various situations. Especially the Revelation and Naglfar need some work. Carriers could get some balancing. All of them should get both armor and shield transfer range bonuses, and drop the remote cap bonuses - the current lack of armor RR on the Chimera makes it completely useless in some fleets, which shouldn't happen (likewise for the Archon, but that mostly affects POS repping, as there aren't that many pure shield tanking fleets). Balance the carriers around other factors, and give them distinct roles. Example: Nidhoggur should be _the_ triage platform. It isn't. Thanks to the better cap and better local rep, the Archon is a superior choice. (Archon is pretty often the "superior choice" over other carriers except for POS shield repping these days, but the unbalance isn't as stark as with dreads) Supercaps seem to need a pretty complete rework. Motherships do not give a big enough advantage over a normal carrier to justify their cost. They probably need more of a "mobile base" role than they have right now. Titans are hotly debated. The current use of "nano-titans" for "hit-and-run DD" just doesn't feel right, and the on/off switch effect on fleet battles is very annoying. They probably should have more of a "flagship"/"middle of the fight" role. 2) Sniper Battleships The Apocalypse is pretty strong here with few rivals: Best range, best dps (even taking damage types into account), best tracking. The ships need a rebalancing of their roles and advantages. Artillery in particular (Tempest/Maelstrom) has serious problems due to lowest range and lowest dps. 3) Docking Games One of the biggest annoyances outside of sovereign space are docking games. An appropriately set up ship in dock range can reduce the risk it puts up with to near zero even when aggressing thanks to the ability to deaggress and dock when things look bad. In high-sec, this can be nicely combined with neutral logistics pilots to form an almost fully secure situation - the neutral logistics pilot can not be aggressed (if it's actually known about among the tons of other neutrals), and as soon as it supports the main target, any dps diverted to the logistics ship will just make it dock and give the primary more time to wait out its timer. In low-sec, capitals playing docking games are most annoying aspect and pretty much impossible to kill. A similar problem exists with star gates and jumping out, but that can be countered by having other ships on the other side. Station docking can't be countered.
Garrakh	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:52:00 - [137] Edited by: Garrakh on 17/04/2009 15:51:52 Blasters (Large and Medium) Gallente recons and Dampeners T2 Ammo (apart from scorch)
Max Teranous Reikoku Reloaded KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:52:00 - [138] Just 2 from me: 1) 0.0 Warfare, POS & Capital ships. This needs a complete rethink and rebuild from the ground up, with roles and objectives for many sized gangs, uses for small ships as well as big ships, Carriers, Titans, DD etc sorted out properly to fit within the scope, POS's for sov being sererated from POS's for industry, Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers etc etc. 2) Minmatar. A complete look at the Minmatar line of ships. Including but not exaustive list would be the Claw (lol lock range), all the capital ships, Fleet BS or lack of one, the split weapon system concept, projectile "advantage" of different damage types (which does not exist with T2 ammo), Target painters, mismatched armour/shield values to tanking type, etc etc. Max
Djanger	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:56:00 - [139] Drones. Players should have an option to reconnect to his drones when player got disconnected.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:59:00 - [140] 1. Too many minerals and meta 0 tech 1 modules coming from missions. Reduce mineral content and remove meta 0 loot drops. 2. Static moon minerals. Almost every system in the game has been systematically scanned and mapped. It would liven things up a bit if the number of moons carrying each type was only fixed within a particular system, constellation, or region. People should have to look for new sources on a regular basis; maybe every few months of constant mining. 3. Destroyers need a stronger role. Perhaps more bonuses to range, so they can avoid enemy fire more effectively? --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule

Garrakh	Posted - 2009.04.17 15:59:00 - [141] Edited by: Garrakh on 17/04/2009 15:59:52 .
Zhull Amarr Patagonia Holdings	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:06:00 - [142] Vexor/Myrm/Eos Amarr Drones Black ops
BharkKoum Zeer Gallente Amarr Empire Research Copr	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:07:00 - [143] Balance moon minerals !! Please the prices are making it very difficult to build ships for small corporations that do not access to moon supplies!!!
Seriously Bored	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:07:00 - [144] 1) Rebalance Artillery. There are a lot of other good suggestions here for improving it, though I'd lean toward higher alpha and boosted falloff. 2) From everything I've read, Blasters need some love. 3) T2 close range ammo needs to be fixed. I know it was God at one point, but it seemed nerfed beyond any proper use as is.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:08:00 - [145] 1. Missiles in general: They have no more big use in Pvp and are constantly underperforming since QR, except Torps (because of their extrem DPS). 2. Caldari only long range: The worst concept ever and the nr.1 thing what makes Caldari so unflexibel. Missileboats should be low-med range like Khanid ships, because they just dont fir into the sniper role. 3. Large AC and Large Autocannons: nuff said
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:10:00 - [146] I see some people mentioning supercaps. The reason its not worth suggesting in a ship balance thread is because they shouldn't be ships. As long as you balance them as ships, they are flawed and horrible.
Idara Caldari Failure Corp	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:11:00 - [147] lol @ everyone BAAAAAAWWWW'ing over L4s. --- Failure Corp [FAILD] - Failing to fail first in EVE - Idara
Wrayeth Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:12:00 - [148] Edited by: Wrayeth on 17/04/2009 16:13:56 1.) Shield tanking vs. armor tanking for PvP - shield tanking is massively disadvantaged in most PvP situations due to shield tanking modules occupying the same slots as tackling and EW gear; also, shield buffers have less hitpoints than armor buffers when using extenders/plates and also weaker resists. This has made an entire race, Caldari, largely crap in PvP aside from their EW ships and one or two others. 2.) Minmatar battleships - these ships fare poorly in comparison to their counterparts from other races. Please see this post for my thought on how to fix them. 3.) Web changes - in short, they were too severe. Please consider setting webs back to 70% or 75% max. If I could add a fourth item, I would add warp scramblers shutting off MWD, as this greatly impairs large ship vs. small ship balance. With even one of these modules, it makes it impossible for the large ship to maneuver against the small ship in an attempt to gain enough range to hit the target with turrets. This is livable in a gang, but it makes solo PvP pretty much impossible; a single opponent with a scram and you're toast if he's in a smaller ship. I also have another suggestion I thought I'd add here to make mixed shield/armor RR gangs more viable: scripts. Remove the individual remote armor and shield reps and create a module that can do both, but require it to fit a script to choose which functionality it is using. There would be separate scripts for each size of module from small to large to capital, and the skill requirements currently in effect to use these sizes of rep would be attached to the scripts, not the basic module. Make the remote armor and shield skills' cap usage effects function only when the right script is implemented. I'd elaborate more on all of the above, but I need to get to work. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:14:00 - [149] 4: Shield mods take to much CPU (shield Transporter for example takes so much CPU, it makes shield RR IMPOSSIBLE)
Vir Hellnamin Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:17:00 - [150] Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 17/04/2009 16:17:42 Originally by: Arkady Sadik 1) Capitals 2) Sniper Battleships 3) Docking Games A similar problem exists with star gates and jumping out, but that can be countered by having other ships on the other side. Station docking can't be countered. First two were in my first list, but foooooooook! the third is a gem! Who ever put it in first time deserves a win forams today badge. Q-****ING-TF on "3)"! -- "Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]

keiiko netsova	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:17:00 - [151] 1. Commandships. The field CS suffer in the same way that Assault Frigates did before their boost, and for similar reasons. Sig/agility/speed too close to the tech 1 ship class, and an excessive vulnerability to energy neutralizers due to cap and fitting constraints. In addition, they need to be rvised in light of the release of Tier 2 BCs. 2. Drone bays. The bandwidth introduction was said to allow drone bay increases, to enable the realization of the versatility that the various drone tpes bring. Would very much like to see that. 3. The role of tiers within ship classes. Please remove the idea of tiering thte ship classes. It goes against the idea of making every ship useful. See: Tier 1 BCs (entirely outlassed by tier 2) Tier 2 combat cruisers compared to tier 3, non top tier t1 frigates.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:21:00 - [152] Edited by: Seishi Maru on 17/04/2009 16:22:26 I counted for you ... Counted only things that appeared more than just 1 or 2 times LEvel 4 missions - 16 Ewar rebalance (include drones) 25 Large AC 24 (when complaign were on generic large projectiles I incremented both counts) Large arties 34 Minmatar caps 15 Minmatar BS (summed from all 3) 11 Blasters 17 Tank rebalances (shiedl, buffer all types) 12 Rockets 17 T2 ammo 29 Titans- 9 Sover - 10
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:22:00 - [153] 1) T2 ammo, specifically Javelin, Gleam, Quake, Void, Conflag, Hail, Fury (not Rage) and Javelin unguideds (not Precisions). These are all essentially obsoleted by faction ammo, wheras the long-range variants are actually quite useful, with the exception of Javelin unguided missiles which used to be various kinds of overpowered but now are a bit meaningless. They might well just need a new role (e.g. high tracking anti-small ship ammo? Or something. Anything!) 2) Damp specialised ships - Maulus, Keres, Celestis, Arazu, Lachesis. These were MAULED in the damp nerf (5 separate nerfs, strength, scripting, rigs, info-warfare link and the way the bonuses are calculated), and could use a boost. 3) Blasters suffer from very poor tracking at optimal, and dont have sufficient damage over pulse lasers to make them a useful choice in anything but solo 1v1 (which almost never occurs). It just takes so long to get in range that your DPS advantage never catches up to the head-start lasers (and indeed torps) have by just opening fire from the off. If they were just a little easier to apply, or slightly more powerful, then they'd be worth using in small gangs, even with having to get from target to target. Obviously lasers/missiles are better in slightly larger gangs, but thats as it should be. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:26:00 - [154] 1. Short range T2 ammo. It's pointless as it stands. Please don't nerf Faction ammo as an easy route. 2. Blasters. The tracking formula has shown it's short falls, since the web nerf. 3. Artillery. Both Blasters and Artillery, seems to have had their niche taken, due to the range and versatility of lasers. Regards Mag
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:26:00 - [155] Originally by: Seishi Maru Edited by: Seishi Maru on 17/04/2009 16:22:26 I counted for you ... Counted only things that appeared more than just 1 or 2 times LEvel 4 missions - 16 Ewar rebalance (include drones) 25 Large AC 24 (when complaign were on generic large projectiles I incremented both counts) Large arties 34 Minmatar caps 15 Minmatar BS (summed from all 3) 11 Blasters 17 Tank rebalances (shiedl, buffer all types) 12 Rockets 17 T2 ammo 29 Titans- 9 Sover - 10 You missed 10 counts for Assault Frigs (nearly all for 4th bonus)
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:28:00 - [156] Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 17/04/2009 16:31:09 1. Artillery (Increase Alpha (Damage and ROF), Increase Falloff, Add Falloff to TC's) 2. Blasters - Increase tracking 3. Tempest - Since this is our main Fleet BS, Increase Power grid to allow us to fit 1400mm's as well as freeing up an extra low for tank or utility.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:29:00 - [157] Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: Seishi Maru Edited by: Seishi Maru on 17/04/2009 16:22:26 I counted for you ... Counted only things that appeared more than just 1 or 2 times LEvel 4 missions - 16 Ewar rebalance (include drones) 25 Large AC 24 (when complaign were on generic large projectiles I incremented both counts) Large arties 34 Minmatar caps 15 Minmatar BS (summed from all 3) 11 Blasters 17 Tank rebalances (shiedl, buffer all types) 12 Rockets 17 T2 ammo 29 Titans- 9 Sover - 10 You missed 10 counts for Assault Frigs (nearly all for 4th bonus) I might have missed if most were named after specific ships (makes harder to connect that all are on the same subject). But on my coutn the generic assutl frig compalin fell for only 7 votes (and I was cuttign from list anything with less than 10 (Except titans because they are huge :P )
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:29:00 - [158] Edited by: fuxinos on 17/04/2009 16:29:12 Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: Seishi Maru Edited by: Seishi Maru on 17/04/2009 16:22:26 I counted for you ... Counted only things that appeared more than just 1 or 2 times LEvel 4 missions - 16 Ewar rebalance (include drones) 25 Large AC 24 (when complaign were on generic large projectiles I incremented both counts) Large arties 34 Minmatar caps 15 Minmatar BS (summed from all 3) 11 Blasters 17 Tank rebalances (shiedl, buffer all types) 12 Rockets 17 T2 ammo 29 Titans- 9 Sover - 10 You missed 10 counts for Assault Frigs (nearly all for 4th bonus) This thread is about ships and modules and not about lvl4s or sov...
Lakut EmpiresMod	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:30:00 - [159] Risk/Reward across the board, specifically Level 4 missions in High Sec while being immune to war decs due to being in an NPC corp (and/or having the ability to simply evade any wardec by joining one without any real repercussion or disadvantage). 0.0 mechanics, pretty much what Max said, also FLOGGING THE DEAD HORSE ( Evelgrivion's epic POS thread). Most importantly, the issue is that this is already my signature. ---------- You get a wonderful view from the point of no return.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:33:00 - [160] Originally by: fuxinos This thread is about ships and modules and not about lvl4s or sov... Not its not.. check the OP and see that there is no limitation on ships and modules.

Local Jobs	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:34:00 - [161] 1: Black Ops will need more than fuel bay to be valuable. They ought to have useful 3rd bonuses, simple as. Agility, Velocity are dreadful, ECM hard to use and inferior to a faster-locking ship that doesnt need a tank. The only good one is the tracking bonus. 2: Rigs. Many rigs are useless, and the ones that are used the most are the ones that DONT specialise your ship (e.g. CCCs, Trimarks, Core field extenders). The ones that DO specialise your ship (e.g. MWD cap use, or gun cap use, as compared to CCC, which just gives your more cap recharge in general) are not worth fitting over the generalist rigs, which is the OPPOSITE of the original design. Please review rigs, with a focus on the weird-and-wonderful ones trying to make them good. By all means introduce more rigs that do things modules do not. 3: Faction ships, specifically PIRATE faction ships. The navy ones are actually pretty good, except the frigs and the Fleet Pest. Certianly the Navy Vexor is pretty amazing. But the pirate ships except Sanshas are dreadful. Who could possibly use the hybrid bonus on the rattlesnake? What does the Vindicator do that the hyperion doesnt? What is the machariel for now that fast battleships are dead? And oh god, what do all the factino frigs and pirate cruisers do except sit in hangars?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:35:00 - [162] BS sized: 1. Blasters. 2. Lasers. 3. Auto cannons. Two need a boost one needs a nerf.
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:35:00 - [163] Edited by: Wang Jing on 17/04/2009 16:35:49 Seishi Maru - Yeah there were a few "boost the hawk!" votes that i included in my count. A 4th bonus would certainly help with that
Secluse	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:42:00 - [164] 1. Rebalance turret weapons: notably blasters and projectiles not fitting into the current laser flavor of the month. The concept of extreme optimal is significantly better than fighting in falloff especially after the EM resist change, with artillery suffering the most. I would like turret based weapons to be re-evaluated for a little balancing. 2. ECM drones: Low SP requirements, extremely high effectiveness, especially against ships with low sensor strengths. I would also like to see the other ewar drones be buffed into usefulness. 3. Active vs. Passive tanks: Passive tanks rule the day, especially as fleet size increases. Active shield tanking is a joke due to mid-slot requirements except on extremely rare ships (tank, propulsion, cap boost at minimum).
Catalystica Caldari Steel Balls Brigade	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:43:00 - [165] 1. rockets. they need serious rework all around, not just some sort of boost. 2. matari recons and eaf. they need web strength bonus, and TPs are next to useless (much less effect than another web in most cases). 3. retribution. 1 med slot is simply not enough. sacrifice 1 high slot, 1 low slot or anything else, but give that poor step child of amarr ships another med slot.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:44:00 - [166] Rigs Naglfar blackops ===============
Apollo Nightscryer	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:48:00 - [167] Number 1 is Blasters tracking issues with the web nerf. Either buff the tracking or buff the optimals. Add DPS. Number 2 is Buffer tanks both Shield and Armor. The proliferation of massive buffer tanks with no way to counter other than moar DPS. Number 3 is Projectiles all around suckage. Boost Arty alpha by 20-30% while keeping the dps the same by decreasing RoF. Give Autocannons a DPS boost to help combat fighting in falloff 90% of the time.
Comstr Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:49:00 - [168] 1- Titans. DD's simply make 1 player have fun over 100's of others. The original goal of stopping large fleets from gathering is no longer needed, and a Titan is not committed without large fleets being present either. 2- Lack of targets for small and medium gangs of less than 100 ships. Static, but easily replaced targets for small gangs to shoot at and defend in low sec and 0.0. They could be static objects that boost the mining ability and increase the bounty of rats in the local area. The absolute requirement for nothing except LARGE gangs in fleet warfare needs to be nurfed. 3- Level 64 Moon's providing too much money to single holders, and the complete lack of anything else able to replace them.
Linavin Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:50:00 - [169] Edited by: Linavin on 17/04/2009 16:50:36 The Tempest and Scorp Both have been sucking for a while. CCP's resistance to making the scorp useful last patch just kept it useless. Short Range & Damage Tech II Ammo (on every single weapon type) It all needs a buff, be it on rails, pulse lasers, or hams, its just not worth the trade offs for the minute damage (if any) you gain over faction. Large Projectiles They're not that good, need buffs. ---
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:50:00 - [170] Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: CCP Nozh Good stuff, keep it coming. I haven't counted or anything but the main issues seem to be: ECM - Mainly ECM Drones Tech 2 Ammo Rockets Blasters Large Artillery Remember no discussions here, and try to limit your posts to three items. You missed a lot of requests for 4th Assault Frigate Bonus. And ignored that about every second post was saying hi-sec missioning was unbalanced. It's no more than I expected, of course.

Isis Soryu Caldari Ferrum Superum	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:53:00 - [171] 1 - 4th Assault Frigate Bonus 2 - 4th Assault Frigate Bonus 3 - 4th ASSAULT FRIGATE BONUS!
TimGascoigne The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:58:00 - [172] Edited by: TimGascoigne on 17/04/2009 17:06:57 1. large artillery - they have no particular advantage. their short optimal range makes them non-sinping snipers. all other advantages are negated by this as you principally cannot hit the target. also even with optimal large artillery generally does less damage anyway when compared to the competing long-range battleship weapons. 2. The naglfar - this topic thread is on the front page 75% of the time and is the most heavily supported topic 100% of the time. It is as old as the CSM itself and not been addressed ( no wonder there is photo apathy ). the nag has the worst tank and worst damage and requires the most skills no matter how you fit it. If someone gave me a mini dreadnought for free I would only accept it if it could be reprocessed. Preferably to build a more useful dreadnought like the Revelation. 3. minmatar BS - none of them are particularly competitive. Jack of all trades and master of none lead to poor performance everywhere you go. Typhoon - unlike other Tier 1 BS it has no special ability the others go epic weapons damage, epic EW and epic drone damage. the typhoon is useless in every aspect and without purpose. Tempest - a sniping battleship with low damage, low tank and lowest range. and don't tell me how good the dev's tempist fittings are because that is only true for them. Maelstrom - best fitted as a sniper but with the poor optimal range compared to non mini BS and an active tank bonus that is seldom used. Its a slightly better version of the Tempist making the tear 2 even worse.
Xiobe GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 16:59:00 - [173] Move all Level 3 missions out to lowsec and all Level 4 and Level 5 (rofl) missions out to 0.0. -- lose. their. they're. there. couldn't care less. lego. colour. flavour.
Red Ana	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:00:00 - [174] 1) Minmatar Dreadnoughts. Four weapon hardpoints? come-on. all other races only get three. Balanced thing would be to remove one of the missile slots (and turn the other one into turret hardpoint) 2) low-sec profitability. needs to be almost at the same level as 0.0 in terms of individual moneymaking. 0.0 gets its boost from alliances being able to claim and defend their space more efficiently. 3) 0.0 profitability. individual newb moneymaking needs to be more efficient than lvl4 missions.
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:00:00 - [175] Edited by: Endless Subversion on 17/04/2009 17:07:16 Edited by: Endless Subversion on 17/04/2009 17:04:03 Edited by: Endless Subversion on 17/04/2009 17:02:25 1) ECM Drones - Breaking point/web/scram/neut as well as cutting off DPS and ability to lock anything is absurdly powerful. ECM drones allow basically ANY ship to have this ability. They are stupidly overpowered and make/break small engagements where they are used. I favor some form of saturation mechanic. Where the jam effect/chance starts very weak and the longer a jammer or jam drone is left on you the more likely it is to jam you. This way players who take active steps to remove the ECM threat don't get screwed by being taken out of the fight from the start, while those who ignore the ECM platforms are penalized for not prioritizing the threat. 2) Solo - The lone pilot or very small gang pilot needs better options for engaging superior forces. Between scrams shutting off mwds, ECM drones and ECM larger gangs have too easy a time preventing a smaller gang or solo pilot from fighting back. Larger gangs who don't play smart ought to be penalized by solo/small gang players playing well. Yet basically because of jamming, the inability of a solo player to realistically fit eccm and the limited effectiveness of ECCM on a solo player, a larger blob just jams a solo player out of the fight everytime. I'm not suggesting that one player ought to beat many players all things equal. I'm suggesting that a larger gang ought to need more skill than "launch ecm drones, assign to solo player, uncloak falcon, activate all mid slots" to totally prevent the solo player from having any chance to fight back! Bad players in large gangs that don;t have adequate counters ought to be at risk from smart smaller gang players and currently they're really not, mostly due to having massive 'ECM TANK' to prevent their mistakes from costing them anything. 3) Blobbing - There is very limited incentive for players to fly solo or in small gangs. All other things equal, as your force gets larger you become more powerful, always. It'd be really nice to see more small gang vs small gang pvp. Some thoughts to promote/allow this: A) Significant warp time difference between ship sizes + an increase in system size. This would allow better options for splitting up and separating an unorganized blob as well as allowing smaller, lighter gangs the time needed to engage and destroy blob-bait. Warp speed acceleration would also be a good start as ships that have a high max warp speed take too long to accelerate to it to really use it to advantage in all but the largest of systems. B) A greater difference between ship speeds. A significant speed difference between ships classes allows for more options in engaging larger forces. Currently cruiser vs BC vs BS speeds are really too close to one another, making their roles often overlap. C) Upping the minimum range for ongrid warping. Again, kiting someone is limited to this. If they have long range support (and larger gangs tend to) you're limited to kiting them inside a 150km range (otherwise the bulk of their gang warps to their tackler chasing you) or maintaining your fight inside their long range support's engagement envelope.
Bary OBama	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:01:00 - [176] Naglfar: needs a 3/3 turret/missile layout and +100 cpu Carriers and Motherships: Were supposed to get a boost after being nerfed, 2 years ago Missiles: Need a boost
Cur Minmatar Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:01:00 - [177] 1. Titans - (specifically the Doomsday) It is used with impunity even on small engagements, they align out far too quickly, and while it is an accepted aspect of 0.0 warfare it is not one many consider fun. Funny for a brief moment, but not fun. 2. Buffer vs Active tanking - If you wanted buffer tanking for PvP and active for PvE, mission accomplished (in most cases). If this is not what you wanted, good luck on fixing the issue. 3. More exploration sites per system or more new exploration sites spawning per system in 0.0. Under 10 pilots can completely wipe out all the sites within a few hours leaving others with nothing in an entire constellation. This means wasted time probing down empty systems which also means a player might be better off doing missions in high sec. Also, boost falloff mechanics!
Xen Mind School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:03:00 - [178] 1 Force recons .... None of them have the ability to be used effectively in fleets only on very small scale gang fights 2 Gallente nuff said 3 Lowsec it suffer from every patch you make its about time you buff it .... introduce idk Viceroy a form of sov claim calculated out of activity (kills and such ) and presence over time, maybe make it so corps not alliance affiliated only can control it. this will give the holding corp an immunity to gate guns in the given system
Myrhial Arkenath Ghost Festival	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:03:00 - [179] 1) Lowsec missions should make it worth their while risk / reward wise. And add some more agents while you are at it. If all the good ones are in hisec then of course the problem remains. 2) Lockout from certain faction power blocks. I don't care how hard you make the way back, but let there be one. 3) T2 ammo being vastly inferior to faction ammo. If faction should be better then remove the penalties from T2 and boost up faction a little. CEO \| Diary of a pod pilot
Lilith Velkor Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:04:00 - [180] 1) (large) artillery - I know its been mentioned a lot, still it imo deserves the first place for balanciing issues 2) pulse lasers - combination of great damage potential at close aswell as medium range with scorch is a bit off 3) minmatar battleships - this is somewhat tied to the problems with large artillery and large ACs, and while the typhoon is arguably a good ship it should be a hint that most people in fact use utility fits rather than using the split weapon system

RedeyeAce Caldari Inspired Evolution	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:04:00 - [181] Edited by: RedeyeAce on 17/04/2009 17:05:04 We started a thread on S&M for discussion as Nozh doesnt want them in here. I started to put the Most requested balance issues, but seeing as other folks have already gone to the trouble and actually started counting, feel free to chuck up stats in this post, then we can leave this as nozh requested and have our 3 issues only. CCP Requesting: Top 3 Balancing issues
Happster Polaris Project	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:04:00 - [182] 1. T2 close range ammo. IF tuned correct, it can solve both the issues minnies bs and blasters have. 2. Artillery. 3. Naglfar
Phorashi Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:11:00 - [183] 1) Large Projectile - mostly artillery, bring it into line with other long range large weapons. The description says rocket assisted, so make them longer range (20-40KM) and make them take longer to cycle. 2) Minmatar Caps, Mostly Naglfar. Give it a 3/3 layout, turrets and missles, so you can either mix and match or go all one or the other, of course remove a high slot. Nidhoggur, no complaints. 3)Boost webs a little, T2 web should slow a target down by at least 75%. Barring that, increase web range.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:17:00 - [184] 1) The tiered ship system (tech 1 ships only, although I suppose it wouldn't even apply to t2 as they are not in a "tiered" layout). with battle cruisers the tier 2 is pretty much completely better then the tier 1. Like in this thread everyone just says cane for the first 5 posts or so, with a few well the cyclone is cheap. with frigs/cruisers there are 1 or 2 ships in each race that I would even consider using. battleships are mostly fine in this respect. 2) No space whales, this needs immediate boosting. 3) tech 2 ammo mostly sucks. especially them post web nerf blasters 50% tracking at 2km is not happy on anything, please change to a 1.50 tracking mod, it's mother****ing tech 2
Col Faulkner Minmatar The Wild Geese	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:21:00 - [185] 1 EM Damage Drones 2 Matari Recons 3 Large Projectiles
Dethis Caldari Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:24:00 - [186] Edited by: Dethis on 17/04/2009 17:26:27 1) Blasters Web nerf put most blaster boats at a serious disadvantage 2)Large AC's Needs boosting 3) Amarr Not much else to say on this one almost all the best ships in each class 4)Active tanking Bring this back, buffer tanks are boring and not creative at all, they also make fights 100% more boring Put 4 because the active tanking couldn't be left out --------
Ad Valorem	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:24:00 - [187] 1. Active tanks compared to buffer tanks 2. Target painters, Damps, utilty drones (general ewar) 3. Blasters
luurch	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:24:00 - [188] 1) Ewar! I think that a slight boost to damps especially woud be great. 2) Blasters, I love em even in their current state, but as mentioned elsewhere, the web nerf, although welcome when flying frigates.. definitely hurt the Gallente. 3) The sovereignty system. Its a huge issue for smaller PVP alliances to be unable to have a chance at the big time because of overpowered mechanics protecting the big boys. P.s. not to sound like a fanboi, but I am very impressed at the way you guys are now communicating with the player base.. Dont listen to the whines! Most pilots who I fly with are LOVING the game and how its developed over the last 2 months..
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:26:00 - [189] 1. Some Caldari ships are in need of more grid. Most notably the Nighthawk and Hawk. Merlin and Caracal, and to some degree the Moa, needs some grid tweaks as well to be on par with other races T1 cruisers and frigs. But most of all the NH needs gird, all other commands can fit a gang link without a single fitting mod. 2. Rockets and the rocket using ships. Rockets is doing fairly poor right now, verging on usless and sometimes its actually better to fit guns on rocket ships. The Amarr missile AF and Inty and the Caldari missile AF need some love. (maby making the warhead upgrades skill give more bonus then 2% per level, like 3% or 4%?.) 3. T2 close range ammo. For all weapon systems, tho more so for gunnery systems. They are vastly outperformed byt the faction ammo. Faction ammo should be good, grantted, it is after all very very expencive, but the T2 ammo should be viable as well, either a good bost to damage, or less penalties would make the more balanced imo.
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:29:00 - [190] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 17/04/2009 17:31:53 1. Ailing weapons - T2 ammo: Close range T2 ammo is flat terrible, especially with the ubiquity of faction ammo. - Projectiles -- Artillery has been rendered essentially irrelevant in modern fleet combat by virtue of the hitpoint buff, optimal bonuses, and the larger number of ships involved. As the number of ships go up, the relative value of alpha strike goes down. This forces combats to come down essentially EHP vs eff DPS. I'm willing to provide a detailed proof if a dev emails me at the address associated with this account. My suggestion: Double alpha, cut ROF, slight overall DPS increase. -- Autocannons are strongly affected by two things, EMP having less overall damage and being too widely spread on damage type, and falloff affecting both hit chance and hit quality (37.5% DPS at optimal + falloff, before tracking is considered). My suggestion: Trade EMP and Fusion, increase the damage on Fusion to be equal to other high damage ammos, and add falloff by weapon tier or ammo. - Hybrids -- Blasters were strongly affected by the recent changes to the metagame (pulse tracking, EM resistance reduction giving lasers more real DPS than blasters in most situations... even close range situations), and then again by the web nerf. Already combat is happening largely at ranges unfavorable to blasters (requiring MWD into range), but now they don't have the tracking to deal with being inside web range. My suggestion: Increase blaster damage and tracking. - Lasers: The recent changes to lasers (EM resistance, pulse tracking, optimal range, etc) have all conspired to bring Amarr to utter supremacy in TQ PVP. Either the above changes need addressed, or lasers need nerfed. There's a reason "what should I train" is always answered "Amarr" and everything is compared to what lasers do. My suggestion: boost the other two or nerf this one.. don't care which. - Missiles: frigate missiles are pretty sad compared to other frigate weapons systems, and Rockets are especially bad. Even ships with fairly reasonable damage bonuses can't deal out reasonable damage (see Hawk, for example). 2. Ailing ships (Faction, Hawk, Tempest, 1 mid slot ships, 1 low slot ships, etc). These ships need boosts in some way, and possibly their role reconsidered. My suggestion: - Remove the tier system, the difference between cruisers 2 and 3 is trivial, and I think we'd all appreciate a couple more slots/fitting on our favorite lower tier ship. If done correctly, this would go a long way towards fixing many of the perceived balance issues. I know, its a wishlist item. :-/ - Rebalance all faction ships except those recently rebalanced. Most of these ships are not used, and for good reason. Their T1 counterparts are generally better. - Resolve weapon performance issues (rockets, blasters, projectiles, T2 ammo) 3. Grinding vs Fun in this game is imbalanced. - PVE: Highsec L4 missions are good isk, but unbearably boring. Last time I ran out of ISK I quit the game rather than force myself to mission. Mining makes me cry for being boring (consider a minigame similar to new scanning system?). 0.0 and Lowsec aren't worth enough ISK to make it worthwhile when compared to Highsec L4's. - Sov: POS's suck. The grinding and blobbing from taking/losing Sov is ridiculous. A mechanic that forces many more smaller (possibly roaming) gangs would be really fantastic. Bonus: Active/Passive (HP) tanking is way out of balance. Virtually nobody active tanks in PVP unless they plan to be tanking sentries. :-/ -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org

Rabid Rich	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:29:00 - [191] 1.SCORCH IS TOO GOOD. makes beams redundant in too many scenarios. makes other short range weapons systems redundant too for that matter... 2.arty needs to be top of the longrange volley damage by a big margin and 2nd in dps, to offset terrible range and tracking. 3.web/damp strength of min/gall recons is insufficient
alpha11 Dynaverse Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:34:00 - [192] 1) Large Projectiles - autocannons falloff concept of dictating range falls apart at BS level, artillery is truly gimped 2) Recons (minmatar/gallente mostly) 3) Naglfar 4) Measures taken to make active tanks viable in pvp again
Sonbalin	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:35:00 - [193] 1. Blasters 2. Sensor Dampeners 3. Faction Ships (excluding Sansha)
Entipathy	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:39:00 - [194] Edited by: Entipathy on 17/04/2009 17:45:44 Edited by: Entipathy on 17/04/2009 17:40:59 0.0 Sov mechanics. It should not be profitable to hold space until after you have claimed it, it should cost you isk (ships and manpower). Therefore moving sov mechanics away from POS and Moon harvesting would be awesome. Maybe something simalar to faction warefare where you have to defend control points, where manpower and teamwork is required to hold your space. As it stands now, all that has to be done is purchase time cards and spam towers, whoever spams the most towers wins. \0/ I dont think we should remove the logistic fuction of POS, they should be for stuff like jump bridges, Super cap production, Cyno Jammers and i think once you hold sov you should be intitled to your 25% reduction in fuel.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:41:00 - [195] Edited by: Yorda on 17/04/2009 17:41:28 1. THE NAGFLAR TAKES WAY TO MUCH TRAINING TIME FOR THE COMPLETE PIECE OF IT IS. As it is, it's quicker to train into a revelation than a naglfar if you're already in a nidhoggur. This is absurd considering the fact the nagflar has the worst eHP/tank (shield tanked) and bleh dps OR bleh tank (armor tanked) and the **test dps by a long shot. Not to mention you can't sniper fit it because it has two weapon systems that need to be enhanced. For the love of God, make this a big maelstrom (high burst** damage and tank) 2. Minmatar bses / arty suck Give arty better tracking and range, possibly more alpha while keeping the dps low as well. 3. Level 4's run in highsec generate way to much money. It's rather stupid that I'd rather run level 4's in the security of high sec than rat in 0.0. The money making difference really isn't worth the tiny better isk. Please resist the urge to flame - Mitnal
BlackSparrowHawk	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:47:00 - [196] 1. Improve Blasters tracking and damage. 2. The Hyperion needs a boost - something to make it inline with the other Tier 3 battle-ships. 3. Hmm, i dunno, maybe..boost Minimatar BS's
Elo Behram Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:48:00 - [197] 1. no real reason to train minmatar ships past the hurricane, minmatar BS and dread are useless due to a combination of split slots, poor fitting stats, and large projectile being rubbish 2. all forms of EW other than ECM are useless, either nerf ECM or (preferably) give a reason for players to use tracking/sensor/painting EW 3. L4 missions should not be available in highsec, make players hike up their skirts and go to lowsec or nullsec, you can't spell risk without isk ~
Soyemia Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:49:00 - [198] 1) Large Projectiles Artillery is subpar to any other large long range weapons platform Autocannons have bad DPS, bad range and bad tracking!! 2) Tempest Bad EHP, bad DPS, lol utility slots 3) Titans Doomsdays are overpowered, too easy to DD a small roaming gang with a dictor, cynoship and a titan without any risk of dying! I've stopped pretty much flying minmatar now that I've got both amarr and caldari. Official BoB fanboy. Called Stabemia. Corp hopper.
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:52:00 - [199] Just 3? Tough... Lots of things, but I guess I'll voice the things that most directly impact my daily play (PS: I really appreciate all the direct player input you guys are opening too, I think it is phenomenal, even if we can't have everything we want)- 1. (Dedicated RSD Ships) Dedicate damp boats should have gotten a compensation for scripting (10% damp bonus would be plenty accommodation) Reason: Right now, an arazu needs to focus all of its damps on one ship to competently nullify it. This strikes me funny as Recons should be force multipliers - Inhibit the enemies abilities to effectively increase your advantage. But if you need one ship focusing on just one other ship then you're really not multiplying anything, you're just sort of shrinking the engagement. Not to mention the arazu will be highly vulnerable while trying to keep one ship down. 2. (Blasters + Agility) Agility in relation to blaster boats. The agility thread and proposed reduction of agility is totally cool, but it is contradictory to why the agility buff ever got implemented. IIRC the main inspiration for agility increase was when testing ships on SiSi for QR it was a huge impediment for all things blaster oriented; the mega, hype, deimos, astarte. Other than making special cases of them to keep them as viable ships I don't know what to do. I think I'm addicted to eve, but in my dreams I keep on imagining the difference between quickness and speed. Blaster boats aren't notoriously speedy, but quickness is vital to their survival and ability to apply damage. Also there is the general issue of optimal/fall off/tracking/damage. I don't know how to say to "fix" or bring them more in line, but there is a lot of difficulty of getting blasters to track their victims at their own optimal range. My issue is that right now the blaster boat has to run a gauntlet of: getting into range (5km>) which all the while they are going to be shot at/kited- Once in range, there really is no going back, they will be in web and scram range- once they start trying to apply their damage you'd expect a reward for overcoming all of that, but what you find is: at best, a 10% increase of damage over what you're trying to kill, and most of that is theoretical because you can't hit the target. I think its not quite right that you can have 90% of the closest "highest dps" weapon but have 10km more range over it (zealots with out drones can very easily mimic a deimos but apply at it a much wider variety of ranges) Tl;Dr - Blaster boats need a way to more easily apply the only advantage they have, damage. 3. (Low sec lifestyles) In lieu of all the LvL 4 missions and high sec nutting on most any other form of income I think low sec could use some help. I don't mean ratting or anything, but I mean some help for pirates. I don't want to condone gate camping but incentives for people to don the eye patch and roam low sec looking for people to ransom or pewpew for loot. As is it is difficult to get a ransom out of people, perhaps a formalized ransoming tool could be implemented that accepts isk as well as fittings as payment. Increase in module drop could help as well. One of the CSM candidates sparked a great idea, an expansion on mini professions. Things like salvaging corpses, a pvp twist on a industrial feature. Right now the only way to have any chance at persisting in low sec is on insurable t1 ships and have an alt that can move stuff around for you and/or run lvl 4 missions in high sec. I read the forums assuming there are no trolls, only really stupid people. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 17:58:00 - [200] 1. Minmatar-based ships/weapons. The Naglfar is a perfect example of this. It's just nowhere close to any of the other dreads in terms of tank (single type, not combo), optimal range, and DPS. Because of its split weapon system, you have to dedicate much more of your low slots to increase damage in an attempt to be on par with other dreads. Even if you try, you cant get similar dps at similar ranges. The best solution would be to add an extra turret and launcher hardpoint to the Naglfar while beefing up the damage bonuses on the ship. This would allow a pilot to choose between using citadel torpedoes or artillery if they dont want to continue using the split weapon system. Additionally, the optimal range of all artillery weapons needs to be increased by approximately 25-33%. Cut the falloff by half if you consider this creates some sort of imbalance. The optimal range issue falls in place for all of the Minmatar BS. The tempest is the closest one can get to a fleet sniper and compared to the other battleships such as the Megathron or Rokh, it fails miserably. By increasing the optimal range on Artillery, more effort can be placed onto the tanks of said battleships giving them the ability to actually survive a single doomsday while still being able to shoot at range with the other BS. 2. The supply of low-end minerals in 0.0 space creates the need to compress minerals in high-security space and import them to be refined. The spawning of hauler rats that drop said minerals is a decent way to offset this. However, it includes a considerable amount of hauling. The pirate factions aren't that stupid, so give them more credit. If pod pilots haul minerals in compressed form around, they should too. The best solution I see is to introduce more low-end minerals to 0.0 space in the form of compressed ores dropped by pirate haulers. This will reduce the number of runs a pilot has to make to gain upwards of 100 million tritanium that get dropped while stimulating the compressed minerals economy. 3. The profit ratio of living in 0.0 and high security space is skewed. As it stands, it can be rediculously risky and meticulous to live in 0.0 space due to the lack of established station services in most every system, the ability to be ganked at any time, and the lack of a well seeded and competitive market. However, in empire space, one can live incredibly safe in an NPC corp running level 4 missions in a faction battleship to earn a very steady 30 million ISK/hour. Set some sort of a multiplier on empire missions so their value is halved. There's no reason why the safest space in the game should be more valuable than the riskiest space.

Drave McClay GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:03:00 - [201] 1. Naglfar/large artillery 2. Un-nerf NOS 3. Nerf lvl 4 missions.
Fistme	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:04:00 - [202] Close range t2 ammo We all know they suck, how about we start smashing our heads together and figure out a solution. Blasters/ACs Don't need to get into this, we all know the NMX trolling that will follow. Command Ships This is really my big beef atm. Certain Command ships are fantastic, others are awful. I think that a built in gang bonus would be a cool idea and maybe make a Field Command worth flying over a BS :P.
Solar Ra	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:04:00 - [203] 1.Sovereignty. 2.Pos setup/takedown and most of the utility modules have silly long timers/low usability. 3.Wardec fees needs to be looked at (way too low).
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:07:00 - [204] 1) Citidel Torpedoes - These by far are the absolute worst dread weapon system. A Carrier can go fast enough to be speed tank the damage by the missiles when a dread is in siege and it takes upto 2 minutes to hit the target were all other weapon systems are instant. Combined with the Fact there is no "close range" or "long range" missile weapon system unlike the rest of the dreads. Also the Explosion Raidus makes it completly useless to shoot pos because its a1000 m3 explosion radius where most modules on a pos are 400m3 or smaller gun dreads dont have this issues are their size is 400m3. 2) Nagafars - Split Weapon systems are ****ing useless you dont have enough lowslots/cpu to fit damage mods to 2 weapon systems and a tank and all the other things you need for a dreadnought. Make these 4 gun setups. 3) Non-ecm ewar The ECM range is still way way way longer then non ecm ewar and could use a little parity
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:17:00 - [205] Edited by: Pottsey on 17/04/2009 18:19:10 1) Passive shield tanking, mostly shield extenders which are overpowered and shield rechargers which are mostly underpowered and useless. 2) Drones: Could we have pure drone ships with 1 turret slot, and T2 drone modules with T1 implants. Drones them self are ok. 3) T2 hybrid ammo it's mostly useless. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
Nguyen VanPhuoc Minmatar The but's shoal	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:18:00 - [206] 1) Blasters (In theory close rang high damage but nigh on impossible to get the high DPS) 2) Mauraders (Faction BS's just as good 1/3 the cost, Zero use in PvP) 3) Ship build costs, less difference between T1 & T2 would brew more interesting combat ___________________ MAXimum CAOD!
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:21:00 - [207] Edited by: Naomi Knight on 17/04/2009 18:22:41 Edited by: Naomi Knight on 17/04/2009 18:22:16 1.caldari race is very weak in pvp, the ships are not well designed to do their intended jobs or those jobs are too limited for every day use their ships should be awesome at longrange with heavy shield tank or ewar capability -weak at close range+ slow easy to hit ships to balance it out ,but currently they are just long range with neglectible turret dmg or stupid missile delay + most ships are realy unfittable 2.doomsday should be removed from game, 0.0 is already titan online,some more months and titans will be able to dd dreads, btw there should be a problem if it worths to dd 3-4 t1 ship gangs 3. redesign 0.0 warfare , currently it is boring and time consuming oh and lvl4 mission in high sec brings more or at least as much isk/hour as most jobs in 0.0 without the risk or need co-operation between players
Commoner Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:24:00 - [208] 1. Mineral balance - Way too much ISO/NOCX on the market. Rebalance it so low sec mining will be worth it. a) Scale YIELD of reprocessing by security status. Low-end ores suffer no penalty, but as you get to the "rarer" ores scale yield gradually as you get lower sec. 2. Low sec in general. What about larger astroid fields, Viceroys, low sec only items? (boosters?). 3. Retribution - Could use a 2nd medslot
Minaruars	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:26:00 - [209] People are saying, level 4 missions make to much money. You need to take note.. How is ISK introduced into the game to begin with? 1. Missions 2. Rat bounties - Which if you think missions give to much rats do as well 3. Trade with NPCs.. How else? If level 4 missions didn't give what they did, the EVE universe would be broke. Everyone is suffering from Obamaitis
Lady Subspace	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:28:00 - [210] 1. Large Projectiles and Medium Arty 2. Minnie Battleships (Define roles, and then make them effective at performing that role) 3. Blasters

Par'Arinia Putt Putt Technologies	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:28:00 - [211] 1) T2 ammo 2) Medium and especially large blasters 3) 0.0 sov mechanics vs. ze blob vs. POS grind. Decouple POS from sov; make it practical for small alliances to have a legitimate chance to defend a small area of space from large alliances.
Trista Rotnor The Accursed	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:29:00 - [212] Edited by: Trista Rotnor on 17/04/2009 18:30:25 My second attempt since the forum ate my last post: 1. ECM (Modules+Drones) I am glad that you are starting to address that it isn't balanced, but it still needs work. I) Chance based just doesn't work. Being jammed in a ECCMed Battleship by a single light drone or 1 off racial just should not happen as often as it does. For a counter point, you can miss jams when you probably shouldn't (although this doesn't really happen, but theoretically it could). II) Causing the target to lose lock and not be able to relock is simply broken and unbalanced. All other E-War systems you can at least defend yourself and keep a tackle on someone. With ECM you just sit their twiddling your thumbs while you and/or your gang mates die helplessly. 2. Close Range T2 Ammo There is no advantage to using t2 ammo at all because the penalties are so severe, added with the recent web nerf the tracking bonus makes them ever more pointless. 3. Minmatar Minmatar is probably my favorite race to fly, but they have lost their role over time with all the changes. I) Artillery (Large): Clip size is just aweful, and alpha has lost its advantage with all the HP buffs. II) Autocannons (Large): DPS compared to other races is way off, I dont think they should do as much as other races, but it is lacking. Improved falloff would be nice as well. This might be accomplished with just improving the bonuses on the tempest and phoon as a significant module boost could make the Maelstrom close to unbalanced. III) Recons: Web strength bonus would be nice so you can effectively web targets, also target painting hardly is deserved to be considered an E-War module compared to the other ones out there. IV) Battleships: Typhoon - swap the armor and shield HP or at least even it out. Tempest - Needs and agility and speed boost to make it actually act like a minmatar ship (guerilla warfare) since it can't tank/gank effectively (which I dont think it should, its role should be guerilla), also even out the shield and armor HP. Maelstrom - fairly balanced
DEB4OHKA	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:33:00 - [213] 1. naglfar 2. tempest 3. fuel bay for blackops
Trauli	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:34:00 - [214] Edited by: Trauli on 17/04/2009 18:34:48 My opinions: 1. Give Caldari the ability to solo pvp. Right now they are ok for only fleet/gang warfare. Give missiles a purpose in pvp! 2. Your new player experience is still virtually non-existant. If you want the game of Eve to grow you need a drastic overhaul in how you do this, there needs to be much more support for new players during the first few months of gameplay. Too many people start out in Eve and then quit due to exasporation of the complexity of the universe. Apoc was a step foward and a step back in that the tutorials were good but new players could acctually do less than right away than they could before. That is bad. 3. Dont listen to random people on the internet. People are dumb, apart from me of course!
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:36:00 - [215] Skipping over the ones (rockets, etc) that have already been recognized by the dev: 1) Command ships. They're simply not cost effective. Tier-2 BCs provide almost the same performance for a fraction of the cost, while T3 cruisers now out-perform them on the high end and T1 battleships beat them at everything but tracking. Meanwhile fleet command ships are pretty much useless for anything but sitting AFK at a POS running 7x gang links (what "fun"). And just to add insult to injury, half of them are crippled by fitting issues (Nighthawk, lol?). What needs to be done, or at least considered, in general: Change the gang mod fitting bonus to -100% grid and CPU.200 grid and 50 CPU makes it difficult to balance the ability to fit a gang mod with the desire NOT to have overpowered setups without one. Simply removing the fitting requirements entirely on command ships removes this dilemma, and solves a lot of the fitting problems. Give field command ships full T2 resists. I can understand the reasoning behind not doing this originally, but the "impressive" tanks on a command ship are now much less impressive in a world of buffer tanks on everything and 200k EHP T3 cruisers. Full T2 resists would give the advantage back to the command ships, as well as distancing them a bit more from T1 BCs. In addition, a little more base HP might not be a bad idea. Make fleet command ships proper combat SUPPORT ships. Currently, they suck. The best use for them is sitting AFK on an alt with a full rack of gang links fitted, and this is BORING (and no, forcing them on-grid to give their bonuses doesn't help, it just encourages sitting at 300km instead). Also, it deprives each race of a proper T2 BC for half their weapons (Khanid, rails, drones, artillery). Leave the field command ships the small-gang gank/tank ships, and focus the fleet command ships on support roles in large fleets. Now then, the specific changes that are needed: Nighthawk: there is virtually unanimous agreement that it needs more grid. Regardless of any other changes, this MUST be fixed or your "balance" efforts are a joke. In addition to the obvious grid problem, it also needs 7x launchers (+1 high for the gang mod) and probably a bit more speed. Vulture: why does the T2 ship have less dps than the T1 ship? This is a sad joke. 7x turret hardpoints (+1 high for gang mod), add enough grid/cpu/cap to allow a sniper setup with 7x 250mm rails and MWD. Sleipnir: It's pretty much perfect as-is. This is the standard the other command ships should be balanced by. Claymore: the Sleipnir makes it redundant for everything but sitting AFK with 8x gang mods. Make it a proper fleet artillery ship, 7x turrets and change the tracking bonus to an optimal bonus. Astarte: Why does a command ship not have a spare high for a gang mod? Fix this problem. Otherwise, the ship itself seems alright, its problems are shared by all blaster ships and you're looking at those. Eos: This needs to be a proper drone/ewar ship. Remove the hybrid damage bonus and possibly the gun slots in exchange for 125mb bandwidth and 10% drone damage/HP per level. Also, restoring the 5th mid would be appreciated. Absolution: You know the deal, 7x guns, 8th high for gang mod, fix the lack of CPU. Damnation:: 7x launchers, then poll the Khanid pilots on whether they'd rather keep the existing uber-tank bonuses or trade them for damage and/or missile precision (frigate removal), or possibly a second range bonus. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:37:00 - [216] 2) Faction ships. They range from awesome (Phantasm, Nightmare, Machariel, CNR, etc) to "useful only for reprocessing" (Ashimmu, all faction frigates). These desperately need to be re-balanced to be valid alternatives to HACs/BCs/etc instead of just hangar ornaments. Since the good faction ships are balanced just fine with everything but other faction ships, the solution is to bring the terrible ones up to their level. Some general ideas I'd like to see: Sanshas: good as-is, with one exception: the Succubus needs a grid/CPU increase to allow a proper MWD/medium extender/cap booster fit without leaving the 2x spare high slots empty. Blood: terrible. No mids for webs, damage bonus competes with nos/neut bonus, impossible fitting, generally they just suck. Change the laser cap bonus to a drone damage bonus, then adjust fitting and high slots to allow a reasonable amount of neuts along with MWD/cap booster/tank. Also, an extra mid or two for webs would not go unappreciated. Serpentis: In addition to the problems of blaster ships in general, they just don't have the dps they should (why fly a Vigilant when a Deimos does 25% more dps and tanks better?). Trade the useless MWD cap bonus for a 5% ROF bonus, then change the speed and slot layouts to essentially make them into blaster Vagabonds: fast, shield buffered, but using that speed to get in close and do OMGWTFIMDEADALREADY dps instead of kite with AC falloff. Guristas: Split weapon layouts = fail. Add +1 missile hardpoint on the Worm and Gila, change the missile bonus to 7.5% ROF (10% damage on the frigates, for lag reasons), change the hybrid damage bonus to +5/10/25 bandwidth and drone bay per level (for Worm/Gila/Rattlesnake respectively), and fix the absurd fitting problems on the Worm and Gila. Angels: these are kind of a problem. They are pretty bad, with the exception of the Machariel, but I don't really know how to fix them without just copying the other pirate factions. Why is there a second Minmatar/Gallente faction in the first place? Anyway, they really need some work, so I suggest polling the people who fly them on what they would like to see. All faction frigates: they're completely worthless. All of them. In addition to the changes from their faction listed above, they need a full 4x hardpoints for their primary weapon, and a fitting increase to allow non-comedy setups. Navy ships: Overall, they're in much better shape than the pirate factions, but while you're looking at faction ships, you should take a close look and open discussion on any changes people would like to see. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:38:00 - [217] 3) Lowsec. Currently, risk vs. reward is completely broken. Adding battleship spawns was a step in the right direction, but it's nowhere near enough. Currently, few people (besides newbies making their first and only mistake of going into lowsec) are willing to face the insane risk to get rewards that are barely, if at all, better than highsec. So: Increase rewards. Since lowsec has the highest risks, it should also have the highest rewards for a solo player or small corp (NOT the big alliances, leave the empire building/moon mining/etc in 0.0 where it belongs). Some things to look at: increase ore values, increase frequency and value of battleship spawns, add cruiser-size officer spawns, increase mission payouts, move some of the 0.0-only exploration sites and complexes to lowsec, etc. The end result is that carebearing in lowsec MUST be able to pay off the inevitable frequent ship losses and still make a profit compared to highsec or friendly 0.0. It even makes sense from a RP perspective, why do the empires claim lowsec but not 0.0 if there's nothing worth claiming in lowsec? Keep rewards random. Lowsec should not be about harvesting static resources and 500-man blob fleets occupying the best systems. So yes, you have better rat spawns, but you don't know if you're going to get a couple worthless frigates or a 3x 1.8 mil battleship spawn, and the only way to find those good spawns is to start hunting all over lowsec. By keeping a high degree of randomness, there is no incentive to focus on single systems, if one system is occupied, why not try your luck in the empty system a couple jumps away? Similarly, there's no incentive to blob, and lots of incentive to go off solo and keep all the rewards to yourself. Nerf gatecamping. Yes, lowsec should be dangerous and all that, and no pirate wants to lose kills, but think about it: how many kills do us pirates lose just because of fear of gatecamps? Losing your ship trying to finish a mission is one thing, but how much fun is it to lose that ship before you even get there? Even if you carefully scout your way through, running into a gatecamp pretty much means log off and go do something else for a few hours. But: killing targets of opportunity should not be nerfed, that AFK autopiloting hauler should be just as vulnerable as it is now. The solution: add a TIME factor to NPC responses. Every shot fired by the sentry guns adds to an aggro counter, and as that aggro counter builds up, it starts to trigger NPC police spawns of increasing difficulty. They can be killed to keep the gatecamp going for a while, but eventually you're going to be forced to leave and go somewhere else. Then the counter decreases over time, say, after five minutes with no sentry fire, it begins to decrease towards zero at the same rate it increased. These are of course just options, the ideal solution may be something different, but consider them at least a pointer in the direction of the problems. Fixing lowsec benefits everyone: carebears get more money, and us pirates get rich carebears to ransom and kill. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Urhgo Khanab Minmatar Rogen's Heroes Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:42:00 - [218] 1. Large and XL projectile Weapons. 2. T2 ammo in general. Esp the high dmg one.(Way to much drawback) 3. Naglfar. Subpar compared to the other dreads.
Hottie McGee GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:49:00 - [219] Edited by: Hottie McGee on 17/04/2009 18:49:38 -projectile artillery turret range/damage/fitting compared to beam lasers (especially on an apoc) and rails (especially on a rokh). could be a dual issue concerning minmatar bs as well (no t2 minmatar bs can easily equip artillery, etc) -Naglfar fitting. in order to compare to damage being done by the other dreadnoughts, the naglfar is forced to use damage mods in the low slots and attempt to shield tank in the medium slots. however, a very large lack of cpu creates major fitting issues, as well as not being able to do as much damage or tank as much as any other the other dreads on top of that. -citadel torpedoes. useless against supercaps and carriers (since smartbombs destroy them in one hit and they move so slow), and deal hardly any damage to pos mods. i fly minmatar, so that's what effects me the most at least and what i'd like to see fixed. i'm also not going to post on my alts, so figure this post 3 times over.
Gloria Lewis Caldari lolpatrol B-D	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:50:00 - [220] 1. Minmatar capitals 2. Minmatar battleships 3. Large projectiles

Clueless Alt	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:50:00 - [221] 1- MINMATAR 2 - Artillery 3 - Falloff design
LegendaryFrog Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:53:00 - [222] 1: Boost low-sec and 0.0 rewards to be on par with risk. Risk/Reward used to be one of the fundamental aspects of this game. The real problem is in high-sec level 4's of course, but if you want to avoid the inevitable backlash of mission runners if you nerf those, then simply boost low-sec and 0.0 rewards in appropriate proportion to the relative risk. (These next two coming from a caldari and amarr spec guy) 2: Minmatar dreadnaught and battleships. The tempest can't fit a tank and still snipe, the other battleships are just hilariously useless, and the naglfars are rarer than titans and blackop ships (because they suck). 3: Blasters. the web nerf was good, but not boosting blasters at the same time has made the entire weapon group useless and underused.
Dez Affinity Evocati.	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:55:00 - [223] 1. Minmatar need some luvin'. The capitals are the worst in the game. Naglafar and Nidhoggurs are usually primaried, if they are brought to the fight at all. People would much rather cross train and get something else. It takes much longer to train to use split weapons and split capital reps anyway. The BS are the weakest right now, the Tempest doesn't compare damage/tracking/tank to Mega/Geddon. Phoon isn't too bad and Maelstrom is probably on par with the Rokh. Recons suffered from the web nerf, they were great at tackling nanoships and it gave them a very useful role in a gang and with the web nerf 2 60 percent webs don't stack too good against a dedicated speed tank now anyway. They are still a little useful though I guess. Nobody uses the Muninn, nobody. 2. Agility/Webs I personally think the web nerf was heavy handed and should have been done on a much more gradual bit by bit method. 60 Percent leaves it really hard to track small ships (unless you are amarr). The huge amount of inty/af gangs kinda shows that. I think you should test 70 percent on Sing. MWDing back to the gate, or off the gate, or back to the station is really easy now and you basically rely on bumping or more people (more dps/more webs) Catching smaller ships in bigger ships is really difficult - bs catching commandship/bc, bc catching cruiser etc. 3. Capitals camping stations with impunity Fighting on stations these days is plagued by the use of capitals. It is very difficult to kill one, it used to be that you could grab a machariel or a nanophoon and bump them off but that's a little harder to do now. What I propose is a bigger aggression timer for capitals. While I am whining about capitals I'll take the opportunity to whine about the prevelance of supercaps - there's just so many and they are used against small gangs all the time. I get motherships warping in on 1 or 2 ships all the time these days. Titans doomsdaying 5 man gangs etc. _______________
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:58:00 - [224] 1. Rocket launchers 2. Rocket damage 3. Rocket ship bonus In total, way too weak. Two ships immediately comes in mind. Hawk and Vengeance. They really should be able to assault other frigates, which they currently cannot do.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.04.17 18:58:00 - [225] Looks like most players fly matar ships for pvp maybe thats why there are so many matar whiners. I hope ccp will count this into the final evaluation when they decide what needs to be changed.
Jack Gates Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [226] Edited by: Jack Gates on 17/04/2009 19:06:51 The stealth bomber is now worse than it was before. I honestly don't give a ** about the stealth bomber, since it will always be a useless piece of , but you people need to start thinking critically or something. Giving the SB a covops cloak muddles the distinct roles of the covops and the bomber. Honestly, now its only viable role is as a ghetto covops. In one stealth bomber with torps, you'll take off a third of the shields of a battleship before either getting blown up or having to run away. A gang of stealth bombers is just stupid, considering that for the cost you could have a gang of insurable t1 ships that do equivalent dps and don't die if you give them a mean look. The bomber's only role in a well-balanced gang would be as a ghetto covops, considering that for the cost you could have three t1 gank cruisers, and if you were to take platinum insurance into account, you could fund a hurricane. Using a stealth bomber in a large fleet is stupid unless, again, you're using it as a ghetto covops. The intent was to be able to "pick your targets" with the covops cloak. I don't know what targets you'd pick, unless you were idling by a hostile jump bridge, waiting for a freighter to come through, and hoping that you'd be able to take it out before support arrived (you wouldn't). Furthermore, if you knew what you were doing, the bonuses for the advanced cloak on the bomber (negligible recloak delay, no velocity penalty, no targeting penalty) pretty much ensured you could generally pick your targets and wouldn't get caught unless you were either really unlucky or really stupid. Considering anyone who flew a stealth bomber as anything but an overpriced bait ship was exceptionally **ed, it's no wonder most of the feedback you got on the thing was from stupid people. And bombs are still **. oh yeah, and fix large artillery and buff non-ecm ewar
Deldrac Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [227] Edited by: Deldrac on 17/04/2009 19:06:44 1) ECM. (overpowered) vs All the other ewar. (underpowered) - I think the real issue is that the chance to jam is far too high on ECM ships, and everything except ECM sucks. You need to look at the whole set of 'buff/debuff' roles as a group. 2) Long range (overpowered) vs Short range (underpowered) - In large fleets, range has always dominated, since the speed nerf it is more and more true in smaller battles. 3) Drones suck monkey balls.
Urgewyrm A Cell	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:06:00 - [228] For the love of all that is holy, fix the Nag. Hell, just give it more CPU. Push Level 4s and 5s out into lowsec thereby making lowsec more interesting. ( Maybe. I'm sure the carebears will just stay cranking level 3s or whatever else they have to do to stay in highsec no matter what which leads me to my next point.... ) At 5 or 10 million sp ( pick an arbitrary level ), automagically transfer players from newbie corps into their respective factional warfare corps so you don't have old or high sp players that are un-wardec-able/perfectly safe in highsec. Would make FW a bit more interesting as well, I think. You could call it the 'conscription' or something to make it all roleplay-ey. Bring other EW in line with ECM. Rethink/rework the web nerf. Fix the Nag.
Premade	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:07:00 - [229] 1. Assualt Frigate 4th Bonus 2. Blasters 3. T2 Ammo
Caius Severus	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:08:00 - [230] T2 short range ammo definately needs looking at. eg, Javelin - Has pretty much the same damage as faction ammo, but has a 75% range penalty, a capacitor use penalty (like railguns didn't use enough cap already), a 25% tracking penalty, and a speed penalty that gets added up for each gun you load with it. These penalties are so bad that even if it were free and faction ammo cost 5x as much, people still wouldn't use it because it compromises things so badly.

Gabriel Karade Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:09:00 - [231] Blasters Nozh, the problems with Blasters are not simple, as it doesnÆt scale through small-medium-large variants. The short of it is, small Blasters are spectacular, large Blasters are kind of craptacular and mediums are somewhere in-between. It comes down to 1) The ability to hit/DPS applied and, 2) Role. 1) Is quite simple to illustrate, small Blasters hit everything for rather good DPS, particularly compared to the effective HP of the ship using them, while large Blasters struggle with anything other than a Battleship and arenÆt particularly special in the DPS department compared to their peers these days. My Ion II Taranis hits basically everything for 267 DPS while having 1908 HP effective (fitting screen). Compare to my Ion II Megathron, which post QR can be kited by a module-less Stabber in web range if the pilot is competent, hits for 1206 DPS, while having 50,610 HP effective. The reason large Blasters in particular are struggling with hitting isnÆt because their tracking is crap, because on paper it isnÆt. ItÆs because the tracking formula is confused between æactual target sizeÆ and æsig radiusÆ. This figure explains exactly the problem; it simply does not take into account the changing aspect size of a target as you get closer. Thus the æuber close range weapon of doomÆ cannot hit as well as it should, because as far as the tracking formula is concerned, being at spitting distance, a target appears no larger than if it were hundreds of km awayà For reference This figure explains how it should workà -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:10:00 - [232] 2) In a way, ties back into 1), pre-QR the Megathron when fitted with large Blasters had a good æballs-to-the-wallÆ niche role of flying solo or in very small groups hunting other lone Battleships. It could fight off cruiser sized ships with its Blasters just fine, and batter down most things if it survived to get into 5km range. It was pretty useless in medium-large gangs as it has to MWD over to the primary, get stuck in, then MWD over to the next target, capping out in the process, or spend the fight trying to warp in/out to get on a targetà Post-QR it can now be kited by cruisers both within and outside of web range (Ref: Stabber Test). It can have its MWD shut down preventing from getting into range or manoeuvring to make its Blasters hit. It simply no longer has that solo role, and is as useless in medium-large gangs as before. If you fixed the tracking formula as I and others discussed at length, it would regain some of that solo role, without becoming æwinsauceÆ against every type of target out there. Being biased as an author of suggested æfixesÆ to the existing formula, and as a (former) solo pilot, I would be happy to go for this solution and not worry about how well it does in a medium sized gang. If you donÆt want to see it in back in its solo niche/canÆt fix the tracking formula you now have a problem: Where do large Blasters fit in a world of Pulse-Lasers and Torpedoes in the Anti-Battleship role, in medium sized structured fleets i.e. ones where tackle, DPS, EW e.t.c are all taken up by specialist ships? The answer is quite simple, you dock, remove Blasters and fit Railguns, because a ship that cannot hit the primary from the same range as the others, has to MWD into 5km range to hit æoptimal DPSÆ is a waste of a slot in a squad. In a way, you guys made Pulse Lasers and Torpedoes impinge upon Blasters (and to a lesser extent ACÆs) role with the tracking boost/changing torps into higher damage shorter range weapons. Everything was much more cleanly distinguished before, now you have two really good medium range weapons that fulfil the role the dedicated short range weapons used to occupy. People can harp on about station camping in low sec/high sec wars, but 99% of the time you can do as good a job with a Torpedo Raven or a Pulse boat, while having the advantage of hitting at range measured in km, not metres. Maybe the anti-Battleship role isnÆt where they should be, perhaps breaking heavy tanks (read smashing Capitals) is where large Blaster-fit Battleships should fit in (huge DPS, poor accuracy). Not my preference but at least make them useful for something in a fleet if you donÆt see them as æsoloÆ platforms anymore. Maybe turning Torpedoes back into longer range, lower damage weapons, while tweaking down the tracking on Pulse Lasers, is the answer? I donÆt know, it really all depends on where you guys see them [Blasters] fitting in. So to recap in one sentence; fix the tracking formula and the larger Blaster boats have their niche solo/small scale role back or, change them to give a specific, perhaps unique role in medium-large scale structured fleets. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
HELIC0N ONE GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:15:00 - [233] 1) E-War: Sensor damps are junk. Target Painters are worthless. Tracking disruptors are marginally useful in the right circumstances but too narrow a niche to usually bother with. (ECM is still up in the air right now but nerfing it doesn't suddenly make the other three useful). 2) Minmatar: Once you progress beyond battlecruiser hulls everything they have is substandard next to its counterparts in other races, particularly Large Artillery and the Naglfar as a whole. 3)Missiles in PvP: too slow, too tankable. The kinetic missile bonus that Caldari ships have is too restricting (no other race has a bonus which only applies to one ammo type).
whydirt The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:18:00 - [234] Edited by: whydirt on 17/04/2009 19:19:05 1. Rockets 2. Large projectiles/Minmatar BS 3. Neglected faction ships (Cynabal, the whole Guristas line, probably make faction cruisers and frigs a lot cheaper from the LP store)
Prometheus Exenthal Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:20:00 - [235] - Rockets need a nice buff - The Deimos needs a bit of love (try comparing it to a Zealot ) - Scorch/Beams/Railguns needs to be balanced - MY LATEST VIDEO - BATTLE CRUISE
BurntCornMuffin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:21:00 - [236] Edited by: BurntCornMuffin on 17/04/2009 19:22:28 1) Minmatar BS and Naglfars are underpowered. The BS could use a boost in range so that T2 snipers can actually snipe, while the Naglfar needs to be brought in line with other dreads performance wise. 2) EWar needs to be rebalanced, as right now the only viable ewar mods are ECMs. I'm not necessarily saying "nerf ECM," but I am saying that the other ewar mods need to be brought in line with its performance. In particular, Tracking Disruptors, Target painters, and Sensor Disruptors are pretty bad in their current form, especially compared to ECM. 3) The resources available in general needs to be looked at. Right now, there are too many hi-sec systems and the resources there (particularly Lv4s and the amount that can be mined from belts) are too plentiful, causing people to simply live there and get fat off of agents and veldspar with Concord protection, rather than using as a place for newbies to sharpen their teeth and move out less secure systems where big isk can be earned. Low-sec systems should be made more dense and have more resources to gain, as right now, they're just places for PVP alliance wannabes to camp, instead of a place for the average player to get a pretty average income, but must do so with some risk. 0.0 also needs a resource boost and also a massive reduction in the work necessary to maintain POSes and claim sov, so that there is both a greater draw to push into 0.0 as well as a means for newer alliances to challenge those of us who've been holding sov out here for 4 years or more now and allow their players to make the most possible isk, but also at the most possible personal danger.
EVEHelpisSeriousBusiness	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:22:00 - [237] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mecinia Lua Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. Nerfing level 4 missions is not the answer, you have to understand that. If you move them to low sec they'll move to Level 3 missions. You have to boost low sec and 0.0 to make them more enticing, and sadly you will never get a majority to leave empire.. So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate? That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing? Because inflation already happened. Removing ISK sources instead of bringing the baseline up would give the old players who already acquired wealth at inflated rates a HUGE advantage.
LegendaryFrog Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:22:00 - [238] Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 17/04/2009 19:22:27 One other thing that I didn't mention because I don't think it will get in for popularity. The logistics time sink. I don't think ANYONE would disagree that POS logistics (onlining and anchoring modules especially) is a huge time sink (on the order of 6-8 hours of doing nothing but pressing a button every 5 minutes to fully setup a defensible POS). The fact that only one person can anchor or online one module at a POS makes it so that whomever is so unfortunate to have been tasked with alliance level logistics is general bored to tears the entire time a burns out of the game altogether. There is NO reason for such a task to be implemented as a fundamental aspect of a video game. It says something that the only way to make it tolerable is to do something else while you "play" the game. There is a lot wrong with sov mechanics, the entire thing is one grind after another, but the logistics grind is the worst of them all. This likely won't make it on your list because very few people actually engage in alliance logistics (for the reasons i have stated above), and it simply doesn't affect them. However, I think few would disagree that it is the most fundamentally flawed barrier to fun currently present in the game. Please pay attention to this.
BuckWyld The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:24:00 - [239] 1) Hybrid weapons, namely blasters, yes they have fair tracking, are capable of dealing high amounts of damage, but only if they get with in range (which is pss poor). By the time you do get w/in range the fight's over. Either your dead cause you couldn't kill the target due to lack of DPS while not being able to make it w/in range or he's dead cause everyone else in your gang killed him before you could even land a shot on the target. There's no fall off to rely on neither as is the case of the projectile turret and they suck too. Just give the blasters* a bit more optimal range & added fall off. Railguns need better tracking & a slight boost to damage &/or ROF, there we go fixed. 2) Projectile weapons, namely autocannons nice ROF, very nice tracking, but pss poor damage (in comparison to hybrids, energy turrets & missiles) & the optimal range is cr@p too. Basically there is the same situational problem as hybrid weapons (refer to issue #1). Just add a bit more to the optimal damage & optimal range of autocannons. Artillery cannons* need better tracking & a slight boost to damage &/or ROF fixed 3) T2 ammo way too much drawback for what seems to be no gain or too little gain, more so in the case of t2 ammo specifically designed for ranged weaponry i.e. T2 Railgun & T2 Artillery especially for it's costs "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." War is about shooting people, preferably in the face
Ikkajo Minmatar Illudium Space Products	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:26:00 - [240] 1) Split weapons systems (the root of the Naglfar problem). All split weapon ships should not have an even slot layout, there should be the ability to fit more of both. Eg typhoon instead of 4/4 should be 6/6. 2) Large Arty: More alpha, less RoF (DPS is effectively the same). Also, unlike other races, there's no sniper ship to help boost the optimal range. Suggest changing Tempest to have an optimal bonus to give large arty a chance. 3) Pulse Lasers are way too good. You have a short range weapon with an optimal way greater than minmatar long range weapons on the appropriate BS. (have a look at GS/Kenny/RZR/TCF/et al killboards and look a the proportion of pulse apocs to every other ship in the fleet battles to see just how out of whack this is. And, I'll add a +1 for the T2 ammo vs Faction ammo total imbalance issue that everyone else mentions. -- Industrialist Carebear, CEO Illudium Space Products: Where's the KABOOM!? LP offers by corp at the LP Store DB

Hockenheim Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:26:00 - [241] 1) Nighthawk. 5 medslots is not enough for shield-tanking. Also need to increase its powergrid. 2) Citadel torpedoes. Their missile velocity is too slow. 3) Capacitor consumption of railguns. Rokh have more problems with capa than apoc, but it has reloadig time and consumable ammo. 4) Guristas ships. They are useless atm. 5) Raptor. Can't fit it with just mwd + 3x125mm railguns without modules boosting PG. Do something with its powergrid. 6) Carriers. I suggest to rename "carriers" to "jump logistic ships" or "capital logistics".
whizzo140 Active Exploration Organisation	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:39:00 - [242] 1. ROCKETS 2. LVL 4's
Myz Toyou Ministry of Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:43:00 - [243] 1) Large Projectiles - autocannons falloff concept of dictating range falls apart at BS level, artillery is truly gimped 2) Recons (minmatar/gallente mostly) 3) Rockets lol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo
Jade TX	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:51:00 - [244] Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:56:23 Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:52:15 Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) 2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...) 3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used) If you want risk do a level 5 mission. Or go and croke over and pop in your ship in some W-Space with billions worth in implants getting stuck in some W-Space please would ya. Highsec whine whine whine... Level 1 is standard pay. L2 is double pay of level 1. L3 double level 2. L4 double level 3. L5 double level 4. Missions scale with skill as well. Its all about social skills and agent quality. It takes atleast 6 months of skills to solo a level 4 mission. Some of the highest quality missions require near maxed tanking skills. Enemies abound 5 for example. Or the AE bonus room, worlds collide final room. Apperently you don't do many missions. I do navy low sec level 4's and 5's because of the higher quality and payouts in lowsec. Much higher then highsec. Btw T1 is crap. Nothing special about T1. Thats why its crap. You don't know what your talking about. Your just going to have to deal with it. Level 4's will never get more difficult then they already are. CCP has no plans to change them. Only level 4's around epic arcs. If your not having any difficulty doing level 4's then its time go to to level 5's. Your skill is too high for level 4's to be challanging anymore so you need to do level 5's. Thats why there are level 5's. Then W-Space is like level 6 missions. lol Go there if you really want to die... specially in a 0.0 system so you get a J6 WH or something. CCP doesn't control eve's economy, the players do. Its the players fault not ccp's. The player is sipose to deside how much something is in eve. CCP doesn't tell them how much something is worth. One regain can be 50% lower or 1000% higher then the other. Has nothing to do with mission level. Has everything to do with the players have control of T1 prices. End of story.
torpedan	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:54:00 - [245] POS logistics, if you need an explination for this odds are you would not understand anyways. Large Projectile/Min BS's. Risk/Effort vs Reward system, people have high sec mission running alts for a reason.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 19:57:00 - [246] Originally by: Jade TX Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) 2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...) 3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used) If you want risk do a level 5 mission. Or go and croke over and pop in your ship in some W-Space with billions worth in implants getting stuck in some W-Space please would ya. Highsec whine whine whine... Level 1 is standard pay. L2 is double pay of level 1. L3 double level 2. L4 double level 3. L5 double level 4. Its all about social skills and agent quality. It takes atleast 6 months of skills to solo a level 4 mission. Some of the highest quality missions require near maxed tanking skills. Enemies abound 5 for example. Or the AE bonus room, worlds collide final room. Apperently you don't do many missions. I do navy low sec level 4's and 5's because of the higher quality and payouts in lowsec. Much higher then highsec. Btw T1 is crap. Nothing special about T1. Thats why its crap. You don't know what your talking about. Your just going to have to deal with it. Level 4's will never get more difficult then they already are. CCP has no plans to change them. Only level 4's around epic arcs. CCP doesn't control eve's economy, the players do. Its the players fault not ccp's. The player is sipose to deside how much something is in eve. CCP doesn't tell them how much something is worth. One regain can be 50% lower or 1000% higher then the other. Has nothing to do with mission level. Has everything to do with the players have control of T1 prices. End of story. CCP has massive influence on that economy. Case in point? When they made huge changes to the difficulty of level 4 missions (before we had level 5's), taking what was a group effort and making it soloable in a battleship to players WELL under that suggested six month limit of yours. Another time CCP massively effected our economy was when the redid the loot reprocessing tables, increasing the amount of mid-range and high-end ore. Prices plumeted, because all of a sudden all that worthless loot in missions that most didn't even bother picking up was being bought by the thousands by industrialists who then reprocessed them. This move also happened to cause many industry corps to leave losec in favor of hisec (where they could mine the still valuable, mass quantity low-end ores). When they moved out, all the combat corps that they used to hire moved out, pirates had free reign, and mission runners were slaughtered by the hundreds. In one move, CCP systematically caused the collapse of losec for anything more than pirating. Fact is, mission running has a HUGE impact on this game. Or did you not know that most of those mega-alliances have huge portions of their corps living in hisec and running missions in order to fund their ship losses? This practice also helps keep those corporations in power (barring internal issues, ala BOB) and is one more reason why it's so hard to move out there. It's not like a mission runner is intending to hurt anyone. But in EvE, everyone effects everyone else, whether they know it or not. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
TheNewEclipse	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:03:00 - [247] nerf level 4 mission theres to much profit and not enuf risk fix missiles the last missile nerf basically made caldari useless for pvp aside from ecm. peak dps and tracking of blasters is to low compared to other races
n0thing Wreckless Abandon	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:04:00 - [248] 1. Command Ships, outclassed in most cases. Could use slight altering in agility/tankability/damage ability. Should be worth thier sheer price tags and skill reqs. 2. Null sec systems that are 2 jumps from empire >=0.5 gate shouldnt allow outposts nor sov claims. Keep them chokepoints with general warfare and camps. Because of random alliances stick outposts in null-sec entry systems, the chokepoints become extinct and said alliance gains ultimate control over travel routes. Doesnt promote pvp, doesnt promote deep space exploring as major part of ppl cant get in, doesnt promote anything but boredom. 3. Deal somehow with EVE underdog ships: Ferox/Lachnesis and so on. Give them to do something that others cant already. ---
Von Kleist Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:06:00 - [249] 1.) Modules. I think that if you started balance issues by fixing the modules, the hulls that use them may end up to be just fine. At this time, you have nerfed so many into being useless, that if the modules were corrected that could be enough. For instance, nos, target painters, rsd's, and half of the passive shield tanking modules are not worth putting on the ships that were designed to use them. Also, some of the speed mod and rig stacking penalties seem overly severe. I wasn't one to do the whole nano thing in the day, but the speed difference between what i can get out of a t1 frigate and an interceptor should be a little larger than 1000mps. A 25kps inty is too much, but a 7k with great skills, and expensive fit isn't, or 10 with hg snakes? 2.) Ships. Command ships are across the board not worth the money or the training time for bc5. They all need help specific to their ship, and should be advantageous enough to merit the 3-400 mil loss inflicted to the wallet when the ship goes down. Arazu's could be fixed by adjusting the rsd's, and thus would be fine as they are. Rapiers could use a more extreme web bonus to bring back into line the value of the ship with other recons. Pilgrim's I haven't flown so don't know much about them, but assuming they need a little help im sure. Black Ops bses you made quite some time ago. They entered the game as a useless pile of garbage and so far they are a useless pile of garbage with a bigger cargo hold. The sin is the most pitiful of all, and is a good example of whoever thought up and created this monstrosity doesn't play the game, or at the least doesn't know how to play it well. 3.) Game development and balancing. Just a suggestion, but maybe get some development input from players that have extensively used the ships or similar ships that you are trying to develop or balance properly. If you are to be doing work on the arazu for instance, do a little research on players and find a few of them that have 200 kill/lossmails in one. Get some input from them about how they are used, what they would want to change, etc. and you will have a more realistic idea of what role these ships play in the game. The 'close in brawler' ecm boat with weapon bonuses per level is a good example of developers pulling stupid ideas out of their respective asses and forcing ships into being used in ways they aren't. This thread is a good start in this regard, but you're going to have a lot of input from people that don't know what they're talking about spewing crap all over the thread, and then you guys are going to have to sift through it all to find anything of worth. Thanks for attempting to get our input on this though.
Alkeena Gallente Dynamic Solutions	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:10:00 - [250] Edited by: Alkeena on 17/04/2009 20:17:19 1) Scanner deficiencies: There has been a huge proliferation of cloaking ships with no effective counter. I'm all for force multipliers and the ability of highly specialized and skilled gangs to do a fair bit of damage to the enemy, however the ability to selectively gank then cloak with absolute impunity is worrisome. This isn't too great of a concern in k-space, w-space is an entirely different matter however. Without local it is literally impossible to have any inkling whatsoever that you're about to be ganked until you are. I rather like the local mechanics of wspace so I'd just like some fix that at least gives you vague idea that there may be a gank squad around. 2) Blasters really have been hurt a lot--they don't do nearly enough damage to compensate for all of their shortcomings these days with the web nerf, huge gates (more distance to cover), and the ability to end up stranded w/o a MWD from scrams. Deimos is broken too, and not just because of blasters. 3) Damps are worthless, utterly and completely. They were admitably overpowered before but the nerfs went entirely too far--just look at the going rate of a Lachesis for evidence of this, it's almost insurable >.>

Ravcharas	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:10:00 - [251] 1. Assault frigates fourth bonus. 2. Different size rigs. 3. Tech 3 frigates.
Holy Lowlander Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:12:00 - [252] 1 sov mechanics the pos bashing is incredibly boring, but the moment your invading space the defenders pos spamm the entire system , if not all station systems , meaning so much pos bashing that its impossible to get rid of all the towers , making taking systems incredibly hard and furstrating as long as one has the isk to continue towerspamming 2 assault frigates need love 3 just going to say it in advance , t3 is overpowered if it ever comes down to 150-200 m pricetags. they stole my sig :'(
Myra2007 Shafrak Industries	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:12:00 - [253] 1. Faction ships 2. Tiering 3. uniform scaling of gun stats outdated?! 1.Need an overhaul. I think it was planned for empyrean age but apparently got dropped. Look at Navy Omen, Phantasm, Nightmare for examples of what awesome fun could ensue. Some need mostly fitting buffs others could do with a complete rework like you did with the Sansha (?) ships. 2.Do away with it. "not better but different" has it all right but less fitting, hp and slots often means just plain worse. 3. I think some dev once made a post about the great pulse laser nerf (years ago). He explained (iirc) that the ranges/dmg mods/rofs etc. basically are scaled equally between size. I.e. if there is a problem with the range of large pulses that same problem exists for med and small guns too. By that logic the solution (nerfing pulse range in that case) is applied equally to all classes. This needs a paradigm change imho. I.e. BS are extremely immobile which means more time to make use of your range advantage. Thus its not necessarily a good idea to give them the same (relative) advantage over say blasters that they have at the cruiser level. Compare how large acs are considered rather weak where as med acs are spot on. See how everyone complains about large blasters where small blasters are great. Coincidence? I think not. I think the average velocity of a ship class should be taken into account when balancing weapon range. Likewise it could be applied to tracking and other factors like average hp of ship class could be taken into account for alpha strike or dps. Otherwise you will always break something when you fix something else. Note that this does not necessarily mean the blurring of racial advantages/playstyles but rather to ensure that the differences are distinct and well scaled along the different sizes. -- Originally by: Jasper Dark I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
Nomad Ignatius	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:14:00 - [254] 1. ALL WEAPONS Complaints all around here. Autocannons and Blasters seem to have it the worst. Lasers and Missiles seem to have some issues. Look at player feedback and see if they can be restored to what they should be without creating major game issues. A few small tweaks to each system would really help. 2. Destroyers Destroyers are flat broken but they make great salvage boats; interdictors seem pretty screwed as well. Consider some buffs and redefinition here or . . . 3. Fill out the half-way ships Consider adding: destryoers (1-2 per race), BCs (1 would be perfect), Command ships (1 as well). Maybe refine roles a bit more. Maybe do something unusual for each race with some of these. An Amarr tackler, Mini tanker, Caldari close range DPS, Gallante EWar, etc. This would make gameplay much more interesting at earlier levels for many players and provide new tactics and counters for the hold hats.
Silverace NailorTech Industries Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:16:00 - [255] Edited by: Silverace on 17/04/2009 20:16:42 1. The amount of minerals in the economy from non-mining (drone rats, reprocessing regular loot from missions/ratting) is too high. At the very least, high-end minerals such as Morphite, Zydrine and Megacyte should only be available from 0.0 asteroids. 2. lvl 4 missions are too profitable 3. Insurance, it should be removed.
Squeegie	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:18:00 - [256] 1. change level 4 mission people are making to much isk off these with little or no risk to themselves. 2. make tech II ammo better. Tech II short range ammo is useless as faction versions are better dps without the downfalls of t2 ammo. 3. Missles are useless in pvp any more and the top dps and tracking on blaster dont do enuf for caldari ships since they mostly just get optimal range bonus's because of this the Phoenix is basically useless any more as anything moving more than 50m/s take very little dmg from ur missiles and can be speed tanked by other capitals. this dosent really fit as caldari are supose to be more warlike as their bio says.
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:27:00 - [257] Edited by: darkmancer on 17/04/2009 20:29:14 1. Tanks, Give shield tanks access to more med slots without overpowering shield tanks, and boost active tanks vs passive. 2. Ammo None extremes ammo needs rebalancing eg. scorch & multifrequency used ** loads - who uses microwave?? Scorch & multifreqency do not need nerfing. Microwave needs buffing. This applies to all turrets & drones. Rockets, precision missiles, cruise, and Citadel torpedos need looking at. Citadels especially they over no real advantages in a cap v cap or a cap v fleet fight, thats before you relise alot simply won't reach the target, also could we have a long range varient like heavy missile vs HAM. 3. Hybred, Caldari, Gallente.** Gallente using rails? Caldari with blasters? --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Major Reach Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:29:00 - [258] 1: Blasters need a fix 2: Faction Warfare needs a fix 3: Insurance needs a nerf
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:33:00 - [259] People who are more wealthy than me should be broke, and I should be more wealthy. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Tessen Stellar Tide	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:36:00 - [260] 1) Ewar balance : - ECM is frustrating for victim (jamed = no play) and overpowered relative to other forms of Ewar. This includes ECM drones. - Gallente Dampener need litle more Love. - Painter need more optimal, minmatar specialised web ship more web efficiency (75% efficiency with Reconship skill at lvl 5 for a T2 web, all other ships remain at 60%) - Web drone are to big requier too much Bandwith : keep the volume to 25m3 but reduce BW to 10Mbit/s 2) Ammo efficiency : - T2 : remove negative effect or at least make them non cumulative, - rockets : too weak, - Arty : weak dps, give more "cargo" to arty guns, - defenters : launcher with Defenders should be perma activated even if no target available (incoming missile) so long you dont switch off the laucher. A defender should be launch as soon as an incoming missile is detected. A defender should run to his target as soon as launched : no straight forward for a sec before runing to the missile. A defender should be able to one shot any missile, 2 defenders for any torp (including citadel). - Citadel Torp : should not be easily destroyed with Smart bombs 3) FW balance - Controling a system or not have almost no consequence, to long before sov change, advantage when playing just after DT. - A milicia should not accept corp with pirates shouting at friendly milician or friendly noob corp pilots in the same faction. Ideas for a complete Bounty Hunter profession sytem.

Unbowed Ash Gallente Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:40:00 - [261] 1) Hybrid turrets - need boost. Perhaps wider range of ammo like minmatar 2) Command ships need a boost 3) Inferior armor tank compared to shield tank
Sertan Deras Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:44:00 - [262] 1) Gallente T2 ships: Lets face it, they are pretty terrible when compared to the other races T2 ships. Gallante has arguably the worst HACs, the worst hictor, the worst dictor, pretty cruddy recons, and the list goes on. 2) Naglfar: This thing really needs fixed. The simplest fix is to allow it to choose it's weapons. Give it 3 turret and 3 missile hard points, and four highs just like all the other Dreads. And make up your mind on whether it's armor or shield tanked. This whole "lol flexibility" doctrine doesn't work with a ship as specialized as a Dreadnought. 3) Minmatar ships larger than a cruiser and their associated guns: Yes, high alpha strike is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that Minmatar battleships are pretty terrible, as are large T2 projectiles. The Rokh, Megathron and Apocalypse are better snipers than the Tempest in every conceivable way. I have zero reason to train my Minmatar character past HAC's to be quite frank, and even if I did, I would cross train him in to Caldari or Amarr.
Adetia Minmatar Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 20:49:00 - [263] 1) Large projectiles, and artillery in general. Clip size, missing damage on ammo, falloff mechanics. 2) Cloaks on non-cloaking ships. Provides way too much protection. All you have to do is warp to a safe spot and cloak to be untouchable with very little drawback. 3) Logging off to avoid combat. Aggression timers should continue through multiple systems and the log off, log on, log off tactic for a safe spot when logging on needs to be fixed.
Fish Mittens Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:11:00 - [264] 1: Minmatar BS / Recons / Capitals 2: ECM, Falcon is still overpowered, boost ECCM 3: Cloaking Battleships / capitals, give us probes to scan them down
Frothgar Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:11:00 - [265] #1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership. Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:12:00 - [266] 1. Level 4 Missions - Far too much money for far too little risk. Lower the amount of ISK made or move the missions to low sec or even 0.0. Running Level 4 missions in High-Sec can bring in as much money as ratting in 0.0 space. 2. Artillery, or perhaps more accurately Minmatar Battleships - Compared to every other race they are practically worthless, far too little range, far too little damage. 3. All e-war except ECM - There is absolutely no reason to use anything other than ECM in any fight. Given the choice every single person will pick ECM for every single situation. It doesn't matter what the shiptypes are, or the range. The answer to this is NOT to make ECM worse but to make other e-war more viable.
The Constructerer	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:16:00 - [267] Originally by: Frothgar #1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership. Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources. You, sir, must have never moon mined. A lot of players have this false impression that chaining moons generates "hundreds of billions of ISK". Ferrogel chains are roughly 25 billion a month, condensates about 20 billion. All others are well under 1.5 billion per month, and there are still many logistic risks involved and market competition. My top 3: - Ewar is of little use outside of ECM. Fix this. - 8 hours to fully anchor and online is a waste of time. Queue this so a player need not sit around all day and push button. - level 4 missions. nerf dem.
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:21:00 - [268] Originally by: Frothgar #1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership. Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources. Moon mining does have a risk. That risk is other alliances gunning for your moons. If you don't believe me ask KenZoku who just lost six R64 moons in 48 hours. I will agree that it is far too easy for an Alliance to sit behind Sov 3 systems while jump bridging in capitals and Titans to lock down the system. There is no risk when you fight with a cynojammer and a half dozen Titans. It's not fun for either side. Unfortunately I don't think this is a "balance" issue but more of a game mechanics issue.
Sertan Deras Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:21:00 - [269] See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk.
Bilaz Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:22:00 - [270] 1) large projectiles they lack: dps, range, damage type versality with t2 ammo and for some stupid reason ammo not boosting falloff. 2) small missiles - rockets and lights - fitting recs are too high, and damage - too low and very dependant on range\|speed\|sig. you end up fitting small projectiles with same or better damage and range + much lower pg\cpu recs on low tier guns. 3) too many risk-free options to evade fight - log off (after jump in or in warp), high agility, cloak, mwd to insta, lolwhat scanning system - so to catch sentient target you need miracle, 10+ gang or not-so-sentient target.

SSgt Sniper Gallente legion of qui Southern Connection	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:22:00 - [271] 1. Tech II ammo. It's not tech II enough atm. 2. Mineral market. why is veldspar the best thing to mine in almost everywhere? 3. POS stuff from the top down. Sov mechanics, production, everything needs some love to either make it less overly complicated or streamlined for playability. ------- CEO of Maids. No I didn't pick the name. I've grown rather fond of it though.Poor PR in progress!
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:26:00 - [272] Originally by: Sertan Deras See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk. They did this once, when they made level 4 missions soloable. The end result? Too much pay, for too little effort. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Ravcharas	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:26:00 - [273] Sleeper type AI in NPC missions would be alot more fun I believe. Also, lot more dangerous. Would that balance out the risk/reward issue?
Mysteriax Scoopex	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:26:00 - [274] Edited by: Mysteriax on 17/04/2009 21:27:49 1 Blasters, I am minmatar and even i think they are meh since the web nerf. 2 Large projectiles / min BS, Artillery needs more optimal (or introduce a 3rd tier), Higher clip size all Min BS need looking into. Pest perhaps an extra turret or some more dps atleast, Change the Maelstroms shield repper bonus to a resist bonus like the rokh. Its to big and slow to use properly with active tanking hardeners. I doubt anyone brings a mael to a roaming gang :P. 3 Naglfar. I am probably the only person out there training to pilot one. But make up your mind shield or armor tank and look at the weapon layout and especialy also the XL projectile guns because they need some improvement aswell.
Saleswoman Sarah	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:29:00 - [275] 1. Blobs 2. Titans 3. Cynojammers
Lewyrus Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:32:00 - [276] To keep it short: 1, Electronic warfare Dampener spec. ships. At least douple their ship bonus. Matar EW ships. Double painting bonus, introduce 7,5% web strength bonus (60% webs would become 78-81%). 2, Weapons systems Large projectiles. Arty: boost ammo capacity, dmg mod, tracking. AK: better tier = better falloff, minor dmg boost for tier3. T2 ammo. Remove/ease some penalties; perhaps boost damage. Rockets. Do something. 3, Ships Matar capitals. Make Naglfar a big Tempest (shield tank and 4 turrert slot). Boost Niddy's remote repping bonus and cap; perhaps cpu boost and slot changes to shield tank. Black ops. Jump range boost and fuel bay. Assault frigs. Need a 4th bonus at least. I could go on for a full list, but even a "10% AB speed boost per level" would be a good start. Nighthawk. Needs grid boost. See how I made to fit it into three categories?
Kryshaa	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:33:00 - [277] 1/ NPC should not loot Tech 1 module. 2/We should not have an insurance when we are concordoken. 3/ Analyze the impact of the BPO Tech 2 on the Tech 2 total production, Tech 2 module price and BPC tech 2 buisness.
ToTheCore Angels. Unity Thru Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:37:00 - [278] 1. T2 close-range ammo. No experience with anything other than lasers, but Gleam/Conflag are laughable compared to faction Multifrequency. Either reduce the penalties somewhat or increase the damage more to compensate. 2. Aggression mechanics. Docking games and logoffskis are completely ridiculous when it comes to how easy it is to avoid a fight. Thirty seconds after the target deagresses is usually not enough time to kill it, especially if you're not flying around with a bunch of people. Targets should remain in space after they are warp disrupted, regardless of whether the person is logged in or not. I've disconnected in the middle of fights before and lost ships because of it, but the number of times it happens isn't worth keeping this mechanic in for people to exploit. 3. Citadel torpedoes. Every race besides Caldari and partially Minmatar has a long-range and short-range variant for their capital class weaponry. Caldari only have the close range variant. Minmatar can use artillery or autocannons for half their weapon systems, but the other half is stuck at close range. The easiest solution would be to create citadel cruise launchers and let Phoenix and Naglfar pilots choose what kind of range they want on their weapons. ---
Yana Kaar Caldari Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:39:00 - [279] 1. Blasters. 2. T2 short range ammo. They plain suck since full availability of faction-ammo. 3. Naglfar.
Sloth Arnini Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:44:00 - [280] 1) Excessive disparancy in the value of 0.0 regions, especially the weighting of Dysp/Prom towards the west of New Eden (by which I mean the regions from Venal to Esoteria, not just Delve/Fountain) and appalling true sec across much of the rest of 0.0. 2) Large artillery: Too little range, alpha advantage is not particularly noticeable in large fights. 3) Titan DDs: in these days of coalitions and mega alliances, it's getting easier and easier to muster up enough titans to make an attack on a cynojammed systems (in particular, but also anywhere a large fight is likely to occur) virtual suicide. The nature of the DD is such that it is a low risk means of destroying a fleet.

Ashraaf Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:48:00 - [281] 1/ T2 ammo With the faction ammo TII ammo are unbanlanced, to much drawback some ammo not worth the time to produce them 2/ Moon reaction, Some moon produce far to much money compare to other moon. You start to modify that, finish the job 3/ Pve ship vs Pvp ship. Some ship are use mostly in Pve, Other only in pvp. That's came to racial feature. have a look at every faction and give them ship for pve, ship for pvp. That's the hardest part, but you need to make this. ex: Caldari bonus to range is useless compare to damage for the gallantean,
xxxak Caldari O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.17 21:51:00 - [282] 1) Lack of Caldari damage bonus gunboats. 2) Lack of room for tackle on Caldari ships. 3) Amarr BS too much better than all other races (aka boost Minmitar)
g0ggalor	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:00:00 - [283] Originally by: Sertan Deras See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk. This. Most people running L4s are doing it to fund pvp, so the isk they generate is destroyed on a regular basis. Makeing L5's worth getting a PVP fit gang together to mission in low sec would be better than nerfing L4 missions. Something does need to be done about the loot drops though. There are so many named items on the market that getting into manufacturing is a near impossible. Nobody wants to buy the T1 mods a manu-noob can make inefficiently and T2 manufacturing is a long way off for a beginner.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:04:00 - [284] Originally by: Sertan Deras See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk. i actually find them quite worth the risk
RoyofCA GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:18:00 - [285] 1) POS and POS mods need to have anchoring time reduced significantly. Making alliances devote that much manpower to a single system every day during a war is highly unbalanced in that it favors large alliances very strongly (more so than I believe is necessary or wanted) 2) Large projectiles are very underpowered, as are the Minmatar battleships. In most every way, actually. 3) Stealth bombers need a greater damage increase than the recent patch provided and bomb volume needs to be reduced substantially (I would ask for 1/3 it's normal size) to allow stealth bombers the longevity in fights that their roles require. They can only carry about 4 bombs as is right now and must restock very very often, which hinders gameplay. "Those that live by the sword get shot by those who don't"
EgoMan	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:21:00 - [286] 1.) Armor tanks are to over powered compared to shield tanks. You cant tank and use utilities with a shield tanker but armor tanked ships can throw out massive DPS, tackle/utility all they want, tank and RR. You cant do that with any caldari ships and still be as effective as a amarr/gallente. The rokh is the most undermined BS next to the scorp because you cant even buffer tank well with hybrid turrets since the shield mods all require cap and theres no possibility of fitting tackle since you have to have a MWD. 2.) Salvage....ninja salvaging is an exploit. If a player comes into your mission and salvages a wreck that is deemed your property he should turn flashy because he just stole your property. Its the same as stealing loot because salvage is more valuable. 3.) Destroyers...this is the largest waste of a ship class yet(just barely ahead of cov ops, recon and black ops). A destroyer is a valuable asset and insturmental to naval warfare. At the current time the destroyer is a salvager...that's just stupid. Why not just make a salvager ship? A destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers (originally against torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). You couldnt fit a tank on this ship if you wanted too...its insta pop city! US navy definition of the destroyer role:Destroyers are fast warships that help safeguard larger ships by operating in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare and anti-surface warfare duty and are also able to provide naval gun fire support. note Ships in general are off track in regards to "roles". If these ships were role based as they should be, you wouldnt have alot of solo PvP pwn mobiles. Solo pvp is awesome but group/gang and fleet battle is the best aspect of this game. Making pilots perform more in role's enables all of the ships in eve to be better implimented and not just the 20% (popular multi role pwn mobiles) that are currently in use. This wouldnt end SOLO pvp if done properly because everyone would be on the same page, Im sure this was the intent in the beginning but mass crying by the loudest minority usually trumps good game play in MMO's. In a nut shell If a ship can fit blasters, MWD, tank, tackle and fit Ewar...wtf is the point in having ship types? just have 4 ships and 24 slots to fit how you please....
Sakura Nihil Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:28:00 - [287] Highsec level 4s need to be next. I could write a treatise on why they're jacked up, but let me keep it simple for you devs: 1) Their risk v. reward is seriously jacked up. Short of doing something in the mission like aggroing an entire group, highsec L4 runners are almost never in threat of being attacked by players - wardecs can be evaded by being in the alt corp, and suicide ganks become the only reliable (and costly) way of hitting 'bear targets. In comparison, 0.0 ratters that make competitive amounts have to deal with roaming gangs, blackops/recons stalking them, log-on traps (aka "logonskis"), the works. Even if they do counter it with alt scouts, cloaks, POS humping, et cetera, they're at least at risk on a decent basis, unlike the other group. 2) Its boring. Its AFKable. The rats' are predictable and it allows ships to get extremely specialized and not have to worry about anything while the cash rolls in. What's being done with the Sleepers right now is a good first step, one I'd love to see applied to more places than just W-space. 3) Your window of dealing with it is closing. Frankly, think with me here for a second - what percentage of EVE lives in highsec versus lowsec/nullsec? Now, while the distribution of 0.0 professions is pretty well spread out (combat, mining, construction, piracy, so on), what about highsec? I'd be willing to bet at least half of those players in highsec are missionrunners, most of those doing L4 missions - I'm sure I don't need to say it, but Motsu... Dodixie... these systems are just eaten up by the L4 players, and its only going to get worse as time goes on. The more players that do it, the more revenue you get from them, and in turn the more revenue that is at stake when discussing game changes - curb this before your vested interest in leaving them alone gets too great. Other worthy nerf target? Sovereignty mechanics, and the fact that people can be AFK landlords (see RedSwarmFed for an example). Stimulus
zion law Dungar Offends Gamma's Honor Often GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:29:00 - [288] 1. Naglfars 2. Large Artillery 3. POS LOGISTICS- i.e.: setting up pos, fueling pos, etc.
Noah Emn	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:33:00 - [289] 1) LOLrockets 2) low range high power ammo sux. Make those good and the scorch whiners will STFU.
endest	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:46:00 - [290] Edited by: endest on 17/04/2009 22:47:36 1. Low Sec Gate Camps The number one way to grow Eve is to encourage PVE players to make the jump into low sec and get exposed to PVP. Gate camps do the exact opposite. Even the impression that you will be insta ganked at the hi sec/low sec boarder is enough to keep most folks away. It is the impression that is the worst part no matter what the reality. So CCP should make a big splash with a balance patch that makes any gate camping at the high sec boarder impossible. Do this and promote low sec with some special events and I promise you there will be a massive increase in low sec activity that will be fun for everyone. Pirate and PVE players alike will have more action and opportunities if we can just get fresh pilots into the low sec. Knowing that you can always safely get through the gates will open up a huge population to low sec adventure. 2. High Sec - Decrease Grind increase fun High sec should be for the newbie experience and pure PVE play all the way up to the most elite level. Build on the epic mission arc and add a variety of missions that are easy to jump into without boring rep grinds. Build fun missions for both solo and fleet PVE play. Focus high sec on immediate 30-45 minute bursts of fun and rewards rather than endless grinds for tons of isk but little action. Also, kill afk strip mining. 3. Balance tanking and tackling No reason for mid slots to compete between shield tanking and tackling. Make tackle modes available to low slots so shield tanks have to choose between damage and tackle.

Doc Oxley	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:47:00 - [291] 1) POSs. Everything about them is just wrong. 2) Minmatar suck. Fix them. 3) Titans-Online. 0.0 has become a game of DD or get DD'd.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.04.17 22:59:00 - [292] 1. Non-laser weapon systems: 1.1 Rockets and HAMs: not enough damage difference vs long range alternative to warrant loss of range (and harder fittings in the case of HAMs). 1.2 Missiles in general: Needing a target to be painted, webbed and scramed before torps can do good damage is a little silly. Rework missile formula. 1.3 Projectiles: Large ACs and all Arties need a boost. Moar damage? 1.4 Blasters: Keep overall range the same, give more optimal, less falloff to lessen the effect of the web nerf. 2. Field Command Ships: While they are fine ships in and of themselves, their prohibitive cost makes them less than useful in general. Give them a better defined role than "fatter, gankier and tankier HACs". 3. Level 4 missions: While I understand that there needs a way to make money in High Sec for when things go **** up, they are a tin bit redonculous. My idea would be to have lvl 4 agents in high sec only give missions against opposing faction navies. So the high sec missioners would get tags to use in the LP store, but to actually get ISK, they would need to sell things. Less inflation, more player interaction, a reason to do missions in low sec (as they would give missions against pirate factions). Also makes sense RP wise: invading navies attacking their enemy in their front porch, whilst the pirates are taking advantage of the diversion to raise hell in low sec.
Sekundar Burnes Woopatang Primary.	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:12:00 - [293] 1. End the Monopolies on High End Moon Mining Big capital fleets get the best moons, which generates huge isk, which funds big capital fleets - and so on. There's a reason why we haven't seen many new large alliances evolve, and it's called dysporium. Do something to give small and medium sized alliances a chance to turn on the isk-tap. 2. Capital Ships Hot-dropping Sub-caps Motherships, dreadnaughts and carriers are hot-dropped regularly against sub-capital gangs. This is not the role originally intended for them - make these ships far less nimble against smaller ships. Seriously increase locking time against smaller targets. Get rid of the ability for capitals to assign drones to others in fleet. 3. Anti-Cloaking Device Right now a cloak is an unbreakable defense, and that's the only one in Eve. Create a module that has at least some chance of revealing a nearby cloaked ship.
Lachesis VII	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:14:00 - [294] Lets see here: 1) Rockets. Current rocket situation makes those ships that focus exclusively on rockets (Malediction, Vengeance, etc) seriously underpowered, and those ships that use them as a secondary weapons system (Tristan, etc) also lack power. I'd suggest a change to rockets whereby they have a small clip size and a very high rate of fire. They could deal significant DPS, but only for a short period of time before needing to reload (10-15 seconds). This mimics real-world rocket launchers. Concrete example would be to take your normal rocket launcher II. Reduce the clip size to 20 rockets, but quarter the firing time (to about 0.6 seconds). A max skilled Vengeance will now be capable of doing 320 DPS.... for 10 seconds, after which time it does 0 DPS for 10+ seconds while it reloads. Real DPS is close to 160, which is about right for a tanky AF I think. Smart players could ripple fire their launchers to keep steady DPS on a large target, or overload all 4 launchers at once to rapidly pop a small one. 2) Destroyers. I'd love to see more destroyer variants. I think the base T1 hulls are fine for the most part, but why is our only TII choice the interdictors? Why not have an 'armored destroyer' type ship? Something that fits between AFs and HACs. Enough grid to fit a MWD for fast attacks, a tank, and some tackle. 8 weapon slots like the current destroyers. No ewar bonuses or drones. For a specific example, take the Coercer (why is the T2 version a Khanid ship, anyway, when the Devoter is Viziam?). Turn the dictor version into a proper Viziam boat with some lasers and maybe a nos/neut bonus. Make the Khanid version of the ship something like the Vengeance and Sacrilege. A bonus to standard missiles or Rocket Launchers, good speed, and a nice tank. Give it 2 or 3 mids so it can tackle. Let it kick out around 300-350DPS with max skills.... and voila. Enough power to seriously threaten interceptors and AFs (and stealth bombers), enough survivability to not die horribly when looked at by a cruiser. 3) Blasters. Pretty much everyone else's complaints. By the time you get in range in a gang situation the target is already dead. Solo, you can't track single targets. Hell, in small gang situations I'll often bring the most DPS in the form of a gank Brutix or something similar, but end up last on the KM because my buddies with lasers and ACs can put damage on from 10+clicks out when I've got to close to 2km. Not really all that fun... so I end up flying a Harbinger or something instead.
Issaries Valran Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:19:00 - [295] 1.Minmatar: The Minmatar have taken a number of hits in the last few expansions. The Minmatar use to be known for having the fastest ships good for hit and run, but with speed nurfs hit and run become less and less effective. The Minmatar weapons, ôprojectiles weaponsö are in sore need of looking over, ACs having to always fight in falloff, and Artillery being massively weak alpha strikes have scare people like they use to and artillery is to weak, slow and short or range and lacking of ammo to be any good. Minmatar ships need some looking at, their battleships are weak and generally underpowered compared to all the other battleships and their supposed versability with spilt weapon systems and no really tank specialization is more of liability than a boon. Eve is a game of specialization and the Minmatar need to specialize in something again. And Minmatar Cap ships are hands down the worst of all Caps just about everyone agrees on this especially Naglfar the worst Dreadnought split weapon systems is lame in a cap. 2.T2 Ammo: T2 Ammo is plainly worst than faction ammo and could use more verity to choose from. 3.Solo game play: The game is moving farther and farther away from the middle ground of group play and solo play. I enjoy group play and teaming up with others fleeting and all of that but you shouldnÆt let solo play just fall off the radar. ItÆs important to have good mixture of both, and you shouldnÆt need a fleet a ton of friends to do everything, sometimes people just want to solo, and having fun and enjoying yourself shouldnÆt be completely dependent on others. Solo play shouldnÆt be the sole realm of PvE, the blob mentality and the lack of really good solo PvP is pushing the game to far into mandatory grouping.
EgoMan	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:36:00 - [296] Originally by: Sekundar Burnes 1. End the Monopolies on High End Moon Mining Big capital fleets get the best moons, which generates huge isk, which funds big capital fleets - and so on. There's a reason why we haven't seen many new large alliances evolve, and it's called dysporium. Do something to give small and medium sized alliances a chance to turn on the isk-tap. 2. Capital Ships Hot-dropping Sub-caps Motherships, dreadnaughts and carriers are hot-dropped regularly against sub-capital gangs. This is not the role originally intended for them - make these ships far less nimble against smaller ships. Seriously increase locking time against smaller targets. Get rid of the ability for capitals to assign drones to others in fleet. 3. Anti-Cloaking Device Right now a cloak is an unbreakable defense, and that's the only one in Eve. Create a module that has at least some chance of revealing a nearby cloaked ship. This is just pure insanity...where do the nerf cries stop? Make a module that takes more effort out of the game so I dont have to stay on my toes incase a cloaker is near by? WOW....
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:36:00 - [297] 1) Titans. DD or DD'd is occuring on a much more frequent basis. Not fun. 2) Large Projectiles. Especially artillery. Range is too short for fleet battles- my alliance asked specifically for people NOT to show up in them. Alpha doesn't hurt enough. Tracking is abysmal. SOMETHING should be done about them. 3) Gallente and Minmatar e-war. Not feeling the fear.
Ferris Tefo	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:37:00 - [298] Originally by: Willy Nerfalot [1] blasters. not overpowered before web nerf, definitely suffering from 400% tracking nerf. [2] blaster ships in general. they need a large dps advantage and the ability to reliably hit their target once in range, in order to overcome the typical damage incurred from closing range. a mere 10% advantage (or worse once shots start missing due to poor tracking) over equivalent missiles is simply not good enough. [3] gallente recons. need much better bonus to damps to be worth flying compared to other recons. this is pretty much my top 3 too
Parapolizei GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:43:00 - [299] Edited by: Parapolizei on 17/04/2009 23:43:34 1. Artillery 2. Minmatar capitals 3. Command Ships (They are just barely better than tier 2 BC for 5x the price) Hey lets go exterminate goons in Syndicate
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:44:00 - [300] Looks like just about everyone forgot to read the part of the OP that said "This is not a discussion thread." Just do a simple 1, 2, 3 and save the ideas for when the threads get created.

Noisrevbus Caldari Breams Gone Wild	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:49:00 - [301] Here are my top 3. 1. The Political system, and sovereignty. Being able to "Blue everyone" is a rampant problem with politics in EVE and thus 0.0 life, and access to 0.0 in general. I want to see lone alliances, or even lone corps being able to compete in 0.0, take space and hold it, without thousands in manpower, hundreds of capital ships and without having to choose a block or coalition to side with to achieve that. Sovereignity and the political system is what keeps the political development twosided, 0.0 territorial life conservative and NPC, lowsec and empire overpopulated. These mechanics are what keeps you from being able to carve out your own piece of space with your friends, your own organisation and your own ideals. Hammerhead's comments during AT6 sounded promising, and cemented the belief that the issue is aknowledged. I may be beating a dead horse with this post, but i wanted to put focus on the issue when asked. I am a strong supporter of the ideal put forward in that sofa. 2. I put the political mechanics and the territorial mechanics together for convenience. I'll add a new issue as #2 once i can think of one. Updates ahead. 3. Hybrid weapons (and their platforms). There have been several threads about Blasters in the ship forum. As far as i am concerned the issue is not with Blasters alone, but with the entire line of Hybrid weapons (Rails being even worse off) and the ships that use them. At least in the Cruiser-sized department where both Caldari and Gallente turret platforms seem to underperform. Webs is not the solution here, what the Blasters need is longer range, while still being somewhat short range. Double the base optimal will still keep them as short (within web) range weapons before applied bonuses. Rails just have an overall poor performance between range, damage and tracking. Most of the changes in QR and Apochrypha has been very good, i don't think the game has ever been better balanced; and i like the idea of the changes (the way engagement ranges have changed in particular, has been very positive). The hybrid platforms have just not been adapted to the new more fluent style of engagement that came with the changes to speed and webs.
Joe Martin Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:50:00 - [302] Edited by: Joe Martin on 17/04/2009 23:53:03 1. Give AFs their 4th bonus. All of them need it, especially for how much they cost now. 2. Faction ships (mostly frigates and cruisers) need a huge work up. They got left behind in the cpu/grid/hp updates and are nigh impossible to fit properly and are generally worse than t1 frigs in combat because of it. 3. T2 close-range ammunition. The availability of faction ammo (being only slightly less competent in DPS while not having ridiculous, ship-crippling penalties) completely obsoletes t2 close range ammo.
The Constructerer	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:54:00 - [303] You know what would be hilarious? Prevent T2 BPOs from being copied and reseed them when they are destroyed.
Pagey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.17 23:55:00 - [304] - Minmatar capitals - Minmatar battleships - Large projectile turrets ___
Segmentation Fault Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:00:00 - [305] Edited by: Segmentation Fault on 18/04/2009 00:20:08 Edited by: Segmentation Fault on 18/04/2009 00:00:01 1. Ewar outside of ECM is not used pvp at all now. Target painters were always a joke with marginal usage and only in pve, tracking disruptors and RSD were both made obsolete even on bonused ships with scripting. 2. Naglfar has half the performance of the three other dreads in both tanking and dps. This is largely because of: 3. Large artillery - lost its role with the HP buff and has since not been given a new one. Minmatar BS are the black sheep of most fleets and their marginally better agility makes little to no difference, the Tempest can just barely perform the sniper BS role by sacrificing all of its tank (and its mediocre at best in other ranges), the Maelstorm has such terrible performance increase to price increase ratio over the Tempest that it's only ever used as a comedy option.
Typhena The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:15:00 - [306] 1) Blaster 2) Blaster 3) Damper .. I would say reduce cycle timer a bit. TBH as a pure gallente pilot I feel gallente ships getting weaker after each new patch. I'm not sure exactly what would need to be done, but maybe CCP could add some new toy for gallente in general ... for example a kinda Drone Control Unit (module or rig .. both ways are fine) for small / med ships to increase drone bandwidth or something like this. Just my 2 cents. --- Sig Under Construction
Angelica Winters	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:22:00 - [307] 1. Rockets, I really wish they were useful 2. afk cloaking 3. T2 production skyrocketing
Atsuko Yamamoto The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:36:00 - [308] 1. Blasters 2. Make active armor tanking more viable with buffer. 3. Increase low sec appeal: bounties, sites, ore types, ice types.
Malena Panic Gallente Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:49:00 - [309] 1. Level 4 missions in high sec pay out way too much for the risk and effort involved. 2. Buffs to point blank weapons; if you're willing to get into death range with blasters or rockets, you should be able to reap some reward. 3. Sovereignty mechanics. ... Stealth Bomber changes: a SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUE
Taguchi Hiroko 0utbreak KrautbreaK	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:49:00 - [310] Edited by: Taguchi Hiroko on 18/04/2009 00:51:47 I will just put all my vote in blasters. Blasterboats atm are sub-standard (if you simply compare it with Pulse lasers, mid range, excellent dps and almost better tracking, wtf), eg, one would much rather fly an Ishtar than a Deimos, for very good reasons. And if one is cross trained, one will never fly a Deimos, ever. (yes rail deimos is fine- if you never flied a muninn, doh). A ship like the Deimos (or its varients, ranis, astarte, mega, hyperion, and give or take, proteus for that matter) must always get close, so close that their mwd are often disabled by scram and they are at <40% of their ship's velocity by webs.... Blasterboats are "do or die" ships since their creation. After the nano nerf- you are even slower than before, with 3 mids (Deimos), you have no choice but to fit at all times: mwd, scram and web to deal with just this situation (and if you don't, it is a guaranteed death, watch that zealot/cerb/ishtar/vaga orbit you at 20 while keeping his point, lol), which means losing the majority of targets beyond 9k, an obvious handicap compared to all other HACs, and with no clear advantage you ask yourself: "why don't I just fly a Zealot!?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:49:00 - [311] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 18/04/2009 00:49:56 1. Projectile Turrets 2. Naglfar 3. EWAR effectiveness (Dampeners, Target Painters in specific)
Ard UnjiiGo The Bastards	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:55:00 - [312] 1) Get the impression this is not what you want to hear, but #1 is: high sec/low sec imbalance especially L4 missions in high sec. Single greatest present imbalance effecting game play most. Above any tweaks to individual ships or modules. 2) Get on it already. Give the AFs their 4th bonus. 3) Give the Hyena, Huginn and Rapier a bit of a web strength bonus.
Anakin Katana	Posted - 2009.04.18 00:59:00 - [313] 1) Boost blasters 2) Boost railguns 3) Balance missiles
Pylse Gallente COGNET SpaceSystems Ltd Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.04.18 01:09:00 - [314] 1. Large Projectiles fail 2. Energy Weapons seem a too dominating. 3. Passive Tanks are a little too awesome to be so convenient.
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse death from above..	Posted - 2009.04.18 01:19:00 - [315] 1. Blasters need love to adapt to the gameplay changes. 2. Titans. Major fun killer. Way too easy to use, way too effective. 3. Sov warfare. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Rengore GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 01:24:00 - [316] 1.) Large Projectile (particularly Arty) 2.) Minmatar BS and Dread 3.) POS Logistics
Angelos	Posted - 2009.04.18 01:31:00 - [317] 1. Rockets. They suck. My idea on rockets is to increase the charge rate, which I believe means the launchers would fire more than one at a time? That is how I've always pictured rockets working. I haven't used rockets in years so I'm just really jumping on the current bandwagon with my thoughts. 2. L4 missions. Easy money, like others have said. Maybe get some of that Sleeper juice creeping into the L4-L5 missions? Instead of just bigger ships, stronger ships. Better AI. 3. Salvage. It's been talked about to death. I'm pretty sure the idea from the very beginning was that PvE's could work the high-sec business without bother and the PvPers could work the low-sec/null-sec business without restraint. Salvage breaks this accord by allowing carebear pirates to harass PvE players without restraint. Regardless of past comments from CCP, it seems to be contradicting the basic design of the gameplay which is a beautiful balance of open PvP and safe PvE all on the same server. It also seems like an awfully easy fix for all the hassle it causes by simply restricting who can salvage a wreck. Just quit arguing about it and do it.
Black Colt Amarr	Posted - 2009.04.18 01:55:00 - [318] The bounty system
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.18 02:22:00 - [319] Originally by: Molock Saronen Increase the effectiveness of EW drones except for ECM drones. Why? Because I'm getting sick of everyone always yelling 'NERF!' for any item that actually does the job it's ment to do. I would love to see some positive ideas in stead of the ever present 'It works to good(for someone else), nerf it!' remarks. I agree :). Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.04.18 02:27:00 - [320] Originally by: Malcanis So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate? That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing? I wouldn't increase isk sinks. Contrary to popular belief the level 4 mission runners help the economy not hurt it. Without them running their missions and providing a continual supply of named components for sale on the market the pvpers and others would not be able to fit their ships as well as they do. You can't force the people out of Empire, if you try you'll lose some of them. The others will just adapt taking lower mission types. It is always better to buff than to nerf. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.18 02:32:00 - [321] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Originally by: Malcanis So increase income from 0.0/lo-sec then increase ISK sinks to compensate? That's just nerfing level 4s via inflation. Why wreck the economy even further to disguise what you're doing? I wouldn't increase isk sinks. Contrary to popular belief the level 4 mission runners help the economy not hurt it. Without them running their missions and providing a continual supply of named components for sale on the market the pvpers and others would not be able to fit their ships as well as they do. You can't force the people out of Empire, if you try you'll lose some of them. The others will just adapt taking lower mission types. It is always better to buff than to nerf. PvP fits are often built from either T2 components which are player crafted, or officer components which are gained in 0.0 ratting. Looted modules are bought, not by pvpers, but by mass-reprocessing industrialists by the thousands, who then reprocess said loot for the mid and high end minerals that can be gotten from them. The exceptions are meta 3 and 4 items, which are sometimes useful for new players and mission runners who haven't trained up tier 2. What missions DO allow, is the infinite control of 0.0 constellations by alliances who otherwise would be unable to pay for their ship losses. It also allows many suicide gankers to fund million-isk ship losses in order to carry out their fun. As well, and contrary to popular belief, having everything on the market being sold at near base prices is NOT good for the economy, as it cuts many industrialists out of being able to make any return on their massive investment of time and resources, and kills much of that playstyle. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
buttesauce	Posted - 2009.04.18 02:40:00 - [322] 1. Minmatar large projectiles are bad. They need more range and tracking! 2. The naglfar is mediocre. It could use another 75 cpu and another mid slot. 3. Target painters need extended range. They really should be the longest ranged ECM module because they are 'painting' a target.
Dasalt Istgut	Posted - 2009.04.18 03:05:00 - [323] Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 18/04/2009 03:16:17 1) Revisit ship grid and CPU across the board. There are way too many gimped ships to even start listing (like every Caldari turret boat besides the Rokh and Harpy, most faction ships including expensive pirate faction ships, etc). 2) RR BS gangs. 3) Station games. Make RR prevent docking like shooting at someone, make it so if you deaggress and dock you can't undock for 3+ minutes, etc. And for that matter, fix logon traps. Can't target anything for 5 minutes after logging in sounds simple enough. Edit - on second thought given how much the game crashes not targeting after login is probably a bad idea.
Arushia Nova Labs Empire Research	Posted - 2009.04.18 03:49:00 - [324] 1:Reverse Engineering Quantity of datcores used doesn't scale with relic quality. Wrecked Subsystem components use too many, Intact Hull Sections use too few. See this thread -- http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1044918 2:Reverse Engineering Too boolean. You either have a dramatic success and a 3-run ME0 BPC, or a dramatic failure and recover only 1 of the 9 materials consumed by the process. A chance to get a low-run/negative ME BPC instead of totally failing, or recover additional material from a failed job would make things more interesting. 3:Reverse Engineering Each subsystem now has 4 variants, with plans for 5th variants announced. You have a 1/4 chance of getting the one you wish to produce. This was a problem for cloak/strip miner/AF/ceptor invention early on, as my 30 un-built Modulated Deep Core Strip Miner II BPCs will attest. Why is it back?
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.04.18 04:56:00 - [325] Edited by: HankMurphy on 18/04/2009 04:58:03 Much has already been stated already and many others are better at detailing drawbacks/specifics than I. Anywho, thanks for the consideration i hope i make a fair argument: A) artillery (all weap sys review) 2) buffer vs active tank iii) AF 4th bonus ------------------------- A) Artillery (all weap sys review) ------------------------- You said 3, i had to say artillery but would assume (or like to think) that a review of artillery goes hand in hand with blasters and the rest of the weapon systems. Artillery stands out the most and should have vastly better range and alpha at the cost of dps and tracking (we already have the disadvantages, how about some love for the advantages? Blasters should receive much better tracking and dps but should pay for it with even less falloff. rails and autocannons seem ok (please don't throw trash at me) and lasers perform very well. I'm not suggesting lasers need to be nerfed, only that they be reviewed with the rest keeping pros/cons in mind (they have very decent tracking and great optimal, tachyons are a higher tier weapon option no other race gets. is the current energy use enough of a drawback for those advantages in the world of buffer tanks? ------------------------- 2) Buffer tank vs Active tank ------------------------- Currently there is few/little reasons to use an active tank over a buffer in pvp. This has a lot to do with the blanket HP buff and sways balance in regards to ship to ship slot layouts and weapon systems. Active tanks are cap dependent and when actually used give more purpose to combat options focusing around speed (mwd), cap warfare (nos/neut) and serves as a balance vs high cap use weapons. Buffer should always be a valid option, but at the moment there is little reason to even consider an active tank unless your ship has a bonus to it. ------------------------- iii) AF 4th bonus ------------------------- not a huge deal but it made my list. It may just be a disagreement between player base and CCP and if so fair enough. I don't think I've seen anyone from CCP state that AFs (even now) would be in any danger of being overpowered receiving the same bonuses as their tech I counterparts. The cost of the ships seems to warrant it and (not that it matters) but it only seems logical. disclaimer: I'm cross trained equally across all ships and weapon systems i try not to hold a bias against any one race/weapon system (unless intentionally trolling Ships&Modules ) as i really do like all of them and don't want any to fall into or remain in obscurity/irrelevance/unbalance ---------- Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherf***er.
Mel Nalsek Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 05:08:00 - [326] 1. Minmatar BS, Dreads, and their respective weapon systems are significantly poorer in all respects to their counterparts. 2. Blasters and Blaster-Boats are almost completely useless. 3. POS logistics. Anchoring and fueling POSes and requisite modules is full of unnecessarily time and labor intensive processes.
Hardened Heart Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.18 05:10:00 - [327] 1) Low-sec- Pointless for anyone to go there other that pirates or people looking to fight pirates. Put some incentive for ISK making out there. Give the pirates more to shoot at and everyone else more reason to shoot the pirates. 2) Faction Warfare- Currently pointless. I am very strongly against any sort of direct or individual reward for success in faction warfare. However, it needs some sort of motivation aside from bragging rights/RP. My thoughts were that it should be something world shaping and changing the face of empire. 3) Left blank because for the most part I am happy with the game as it is. Hence my subscription. Keep up the good work and don't let all the tards get you guys down.
TEMHblu BOuH	Posted - 2009.04.18 05:20:00 - [328] I can fly a nidhoggur and have no problems with it at all. However when I come to train for a dread, I'll be cross training to ANY dread that isn't a naglfar. It'll take a lot longer, but the nag really is that terrible. It doesn't seem to do anything well except die. The tempest is a subpar fleet BS at best, and large projectile weapons (artillery in particular) are pretty much outclassed by other large weapons. I'd love to see arty ships like the tempest go back to the low RoF extreemly high alpha that they used to be, but yet still be able to hit out to the type of ranges that rails/lasers can. There's 3 rather biased (but no less correct) balance issues that I can see.
Veryez	Posted - 2009.04.18 05:23:00 - [329] 1) Minmatar Battleships (and for that matter capital ships). In general they are weaker than their competition. Minmatar battleships lack a true sniper as none of them have optimal or tracking bonuses. With active tanks going the way of the dinosaur and the reduction in value of mid slot mods, the inability to fit large buffer tanks on minmatar battleships leaves them far behind the competition. Arguable the best of the lot is the phoon, mostly because it doesn't rely on projectiles. 2) Projectiles in general and Artillery in particular. AC's need a slight tracking boost after the web nerf and the hole in the damage formula that causes optimal range to effect hit quality really hurts them since they have the smallest optimals, but artillery needs a major overhaul. Much larger clip size (like 3 to 4 times larger) and much greater range. A noticible increase in DPS is also needed if people are expected to actually use it. Sure I would love to have back the huge alpha, but I understand CCP wanted to go for longer fights. Fine, but reloading every 10 shots, poor range and poor dps is a bit much to take. The system has been less than useful for quite some time now. 3) Missiles need a slight boost to explosive velosity or a reduction in explosive signature. I don't think a return to the old system is wise, but in general missiles are too easy to evade especially for ships they were designed to hit. While I understand the need for torpedoes to do reduced damage to cruiser and frigate class ships, a battleship without an AB should almost always take full damage. HAM's should hit cruisers hard, and rockets should hurt frigate class ships, they don't. The need to fit a web and a painter to do normal damage against properly sized ships is a bit harsh since there is no way to minimize their speed by flying (like you can with transversal), even a change where you could use a web or a painter would be welcome. A small adjustment or even a skill that reduces unguided missile explosive signature is needed. This problem isn't as noticible on guided missiles because of the effect of skills.
spinarax Method of Destruction Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.18 06:08:00 - [330] 1. Level 4 Mission - low risk (almost zero), high reward 2. Large Projectile - Falloff of Large Autocanons is impractical on a BS, need more damage/ROF. Large Artillery just sucks, need more range/alpha 3. Rockets - very low damage compared to other short ranged small weapons.

Mirei Jun Right to Rule Republic Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.18 06:13:00 - [331] 1) Sovereignty warfare and its bastard child, POS management. 2) Titans 3) Cloaking All three of these topics and what is wrong with them are thoroughly covered by other threads in this very sub-forum. The last few updates have heavily focused on new players, empire space, and PvE content. Endgame content (above issue #1 and #2) has outgrown its original scope and is badly in need of an overhaul.
Pulsarr1	Posted - 2009.04.18 06:14:00 - [332] 1) Naglfar, it's just plain horrible, why would you want split weapons on a dread? 2) Large projectiles. I think it's been covered well enough by others that I don't need to explain this. 3) Faction ships, they need a serious relook, everything from PG, CPU and slot layout, many are impossible to fit. It would also be nice if the LP requirements would come down on faction ships, I'd love to see more flying about.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.04.18 06:18:00 - [333] After reading the last patch notes, I finally realize how pointless it is to argue anything against the Dev ideas. All the changes they originally propose go thru, unless they themselves change their mind. Nothing that players say - as far as good ideas go, has any impact on their final decision, as apparent from their continuous ignoring of good deas. The only way to do anything that matters is to find a game bug or feature that goes against the dev's idea of how it supposed to work, thus reinforcing Dev's correctness, rather than trying to change it. I give up posting on game design issues The futility is too frustrating
RobTheRad GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 07:09:00 - [334] 1. POS - It takes around 6 hours to setup a standard POS in 0.0 space. What kind of fun is that? Especially since a spaceholding alliance has hundreds of these POS in their space. It would be cool to have pre-built fitttings for a POS where you can drop it and have it all anchor and online on it's own. The anchoring and onlining would take the same 6 hours or more, but you would have to sit there pushing a button every 5 minutes. 2. Naglfar 3. High-Sec - You get to sit around safe from everything with no drawbacks. I understand it was originally made for newer players, but there are people who sit there are do level 4 missions all day ****socking with no real risk.
Rickete	Posted - 2009.04.18 07:29:00 - [335] Artillery, artillery, and the disparity in usefulness between types of e-war
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:04:00 - [336] Since I'm pretty well satisfied with the other races I'll do a minmatar boost poast special. Large arty. Moar alpha and range. Rapier/Huggin: Web effectiveness bonus in place of the silly never ever ever ever used tp bonus. Nag. Add a launcher hardpoint. Done. Originally by: Achar Losa i might be just a 6 year old stupid boy, but he's a CCP dev writing in the forums!
HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE U.K.R.A.I.N.E United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:05:00 - [337] 0. Return to bombers 5sec recloaking delay. 1. Do something with missiles. Torpedoes should not be speed-tanked by battleships. Heavy missiles should not be speed-tanked by hacs. Istead of stupid explosion velocity parameter, make an "anti-missile maneuvering success factor" for ships which would be a some randomization factor for delivered damage (like tracking for turrets) and agility factor for missiles. 2. Make Falcons work range in line with long hacs. It's ok that falcons can't jam from 200km anymore. But 120-140km optimal+faloff is needed.
159Pinky Trans-Solar Works	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:14:00 - [338] 1) Sov system: give smaller alliance the chance to settle in 0.0 as well. Atm it's fairly impossible for smaller alliances to gain sov in any sys occupied by a major power block 2) Blasters: due to web nerf they have a lot of trouble hitting targets and thus need some attention 3) Hull tanking: not an option atm, why not use it in the future?
Ikar Kaltin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:17:00 - [339] 1) Cloaking 2) POS's 3) Large docking ranges on stations.
Cracken Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:42:00 - [340] 1)Ease of probing it has become a joke too probe now hence why mission runners have all moved too hi sec. A pve setup cannot pvp period. 2)how infested with player pirates low sec is. That's right it is now actually safer too go into deep null sec than it is too enter low sec. 3)Meh if you want risk vs reward look @ salvage thieves concord are police maybe they should enforce the law a little better.

A'ruhn Caldari Intergalactic Spacegoats Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:53:00 - [341] 1. Fourth bonus on AF's. nuff said. 2. New missile SFX + missile launcher turrets visible on ship. Everything esle got a boost, but not missiles. 3. Make destroyers viable for more than salvaging + low level nub missions.
Zora Xen	Posted - 2009.04.18 09:11:00 - [342] 1) Hybrid Blasters 2) T2 Ammo 3) Insurance As for nerfing Level 4's -it would only hurt subscriptions.
Hilda B9	Posted - 2009.04.18 09:44:00 - [343] Originally by: Gneeznow 2) titans - huge numbers of them now, I've given up on 0.0 warfare because its just a sequence of doomsdays these days Well there are 2 less in the game: Arcane Are you happy now
Miraqu Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.18 09:52:00 - [344] 1. Give the Caldari Crane enough Powergrid to fit an MWD and some resistances, like all other blockade runners. 2. Bring remote shield transfer and remote armor rep in line. Most RR gangs are flying armor only. 3. Missiles are useless in pvp.
prefectro Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:00:00 - [345] 1. Sov Mechanics (I could write an essay on the problems with this) 2. Titans (Specifically how they are used so liberally on small/med roaming gangs) 3. Minmatar Caps or Artillery (Can't decide what is worse)
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:06:00 - [346] 1. Sov mechanics/Pos bashing 2. Risk/reward - lvl 4 missions are way too profitable. The npc corp problem. 3. Ewar, specifically ewar in large scale battles. Specialised ewar ships should be viable ships to use even in large scale battles. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1.
Joiske	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:15:00 - [347] Edited by: Joiske on 18/04/2009 10:20:02 1 - titan (new eve bs) one click insta pop x ship is pointless - make them more like mobile homes (ie outpost that move and can deploy sentries)which have huge ship hangers where offensive forces can resupply on front lines plus a insane buffer from attack. The deployment could be based on a 'timer' mmm someting like triage on carriers but a bit longer :o) 2 - afk cloaking ... time convert cloaks into mods that use something, be it cap or fuel which means they need to unclaok / recloak. 3 - sov/pos warfare - make it more strategic, in that to break a system sov you need to attack more objectives at the SAME time, thus splitting the blob fleets and making them more tatic focus btw - dont agree with the idea of nurfing lev 4's especially when low sec gate camps provide no risk /reward to the pirate thus they are able to tank sentries at gates with ease, something has to give before the lev 4's can even be looked into .. plus ccp would lose a massive amount of player base if the lev 4's were nurfed
Leiture Amarr Liliis tenaci vimine jungor	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:23:00 - [348] 1) complete change of industry 2) complete change of invention (no more T2 bpo) 3) "Small" freighter
1072 Amarr Fliegerkorps	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:30:00 - [349] 1- blasters all arround 2- docking & aggression timers in high sec 3- corp jumping when wardecced.. just annoying
Garr Anders Minmatar Thukk U	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:44:00 - [350] Edited by: Garr Anders on 18/04/2009 10:45:06 Regarding lvl4 mission making to much profti. Make agent quality dynamic based on how many ppl frrom dt to dt used this agent. The more ppl do mission the lower the quality -> lower payout. This would: - destroy mission hubs like motsu, as it would drop the quality almost instantly - spread the ppl out making selling loot/reprocessed minerals not that lucrative anymore as they will be scatter across empire - strengthen local trade hubs to due to more spead out ppl - make agents in low sec the highest quality due to their lower usage (not like it is that way already for minni anyway) - no hypermassive mission hubs like motsu = less strain on server - more agents get used by ppl making empire overall more populated - make eve bigger again as it not caters to just a few systems - make it worthwhile to "life" in a unpopulated area of eve due to the "better" agent quality Apart from that : - boost minmatar, a lot of balancing was nerf minni (hit point increase 2years ago, nano nerf, agility changes, webber (rapier) changes, ... ) - boost FW rewards (LP discount would go a long way while tied to standing, make ranks not tied to standing, e.g. ppl have to buy the rank so ppl can fly with the rank they like most) ----- Garr Anders "The only winning move is not to play" is about the best damn advice anyone can get regarding arguing over the internet. - referring to the Movie WarGames 1983

Captain Vampire	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:08:00 - [351] 1) The intel suite: Right now, local is all you need for your instant intel update. Trail alts can easily be used as spies to keep track of fleet/gang movement in key systems. This system completely removes the "benefit of surprise" in 0.0 and to some degree low-sec warfare, making PvP in many cases a numbers game where the smallest gang will flee/dock. Nerfing intel gathering tools will give more fights in 0.0 and bring back the sense of danger. Because frankly, there is little to no danger in 0.0 2) High sec: Risk vs reward in high sec is simply too low compared to the rest of the game. Either nerf high sec space, and **** off many carebears, or drastically increase the rewards of low-sec and 0.0 3) Blasters: Blasters are subpair to pulse lasers in pretty much all practical situations. The web nerf did not help.
Zzulu X Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:15:00 - [352] Edited by: Zzulu X on 18/04/2009 11:16:35 Buff minmatar battleships and artillery guns please Oh, and fix the animation and sound of large Railguns as well. (they are awful)
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:19:00 - [353] 1) High sec level 4 missions - Too much isk. I make billions of isk for pvp using an invulnerable npc mission runner. 2) Titans and 0.0 Sov - Titans have this drive-by instant kill button that is out of place in eve, 0.0 sov mechanics promotes server breaking blobs. 3) Goals for small to medium sized gangs (around 10-30). 0.0 is blob or go home if you want to make any meaningful impact. Small gangs shouldn't effect sov in a major way, but there is a lot of mindless roaming around 0.0 and little reason to engage small fleets if you are a large sov holder. Extra whine: Agility and regional gates. Serious, regional gates used to be fun. You can camp them with a small group and hurt 0.0 logistics and force a fight or at least them to form a blob to push you out. Now you can get a BC/BS through a regional gate easy and then use a 0.0 JB network guarded by deathstars to get anywhere in 0.0 without any risk. Lame. Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
Zzulu X Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:20:00 - [354]
emf Amarr Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:21:00 - [355] 1. Webs, they got nerfed way too hard. 2. Minmatar, even though lots of people seem to think they're fine except for artillery, the stats for ALL their weapons is way too low. 3. ECM drones, they jam way too frequently.
Tamahra 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:23:00 - [356] Edited by: Tamahra on 18/04/2009 11:23:00 Mining missions. I cant see why mining missions give such a crappy reward. Why shouldnt a dedicated miner with the appropriate skills get at least half the standing gain from each mission than a combat mission runner, and at least make half the (total) rewards (added together from loot, salvage, mission reward), that a combat mission runner can make in the same time. Just make it so that mining missions cant be run totally afk. How you can do this, this is up to you, but im sure its doable
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:26:00 - [357] large projectiles need work t2 ammo should have its penalties removed. blasters.you know. L4 missions are fine, its the other money making stuff thats not as good as it should be. lowsec ratting should be more profitable than than hisec mission running. yeah i said it.
The Hammond Minmatar Fliegerkorps	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:26:00 - [358] 1- Large projectiles 2- Minmatar BS' 3- Ship agilities, especially regarding high sec gate camping
Razzlie	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:30:00 - [359] 1) The scorpion, since it has a far lower range now, consider giving it a better ability to tank, since compared to other battleships it's made of wet paper and the only protection it had was staying at 220-240km away from everything and jamming anything that could reach that far. 2) Missiles, they need to be worked on 3) Enhance drones' usability in long range combat
sadid Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:39:00 - [360] 1- Large projectiles -bring back the stat's from 2004 need i say more 2- Minmatar BS 3- most Minmatar ship's right now is crap

Meissa Anunthiel Redshift Industrial	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:40:00 - [361] - Minmatar big ships Practically, that means: i) Rebalancing: Tempest, Tempest Fleet Issue, Vargur, Nag, Hel ii) Artillery boost - Too big impact of true sec on 0.0 systems. Means the only systems used are the ones < -0.8, leaving most empty. Both in terms of ratting and mining. - short range T2 ammo: range too short, cap penalty too high. Compare with faction ammo...
Marquis Zenas m3 Corp BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:40:00 - [362] Edited by: Marquis Zenas on 18/04/2009 11:40:18 Hmmm lets see: - Lack of focus for minmatar (shield tank? armour tank? missiles? projectiles?) - Dead horse POS - Rockets and defenders! --------------------------
Shinnen Caldari Northern Intelligence PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.18 11:46:00 - [363] I'm going to throw it out there, and I know someone will flame, but I'm kind of sick of it: Megathron CPU, 3-5% more CPU and let us fit without having to use an implant or CPU II. Plus, if there are things that you don't like about Eve, click HERE because it will help.
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:09:00 - [364] Edited by: Tzar''rim on 18/04/2009 12:10:05 Passive EHP tanking, because just as with ECM and nano it's too extreme right now. The only viable reply to "how to tank in pvp" is "passive". Rigs are just too powerful and the amount of plates/shield extenders one can fit is too much. Lowering EHP tanking to a point where it's more even to active tanking would solve many problems. All of a sudden the passive totalhelldeath Amarr BS get tempered down due to using more PG for their tank and actually using cap for it. Minmatar get more evened out as well since base HP all of a sudden is less relevant AND it would help their capless weapons 'bonus'. And Gallente ships shield tanking while even getting a bonus to armor tank? WTF! EHP tanking has become silly and needs to be adressed. Self-proclaimed idiot
Nova Satar Annihilate.	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:24:00 - [365] Edited by: Nova Satar on 18/04/2009 12:25:24 1 - Projectiles 2 - Naglfar 3 - Projectiles
Ragel Tropxe The Older Gamers Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:25:00 - [366] 1. Artillery 2. Naglfar 3. Citadel torpedo speed.
Shani Mukantagara Amarr Trans-Solar Works	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:32:00 - [367] Medium ECM Drones needs a re-balance or increase Command Ship sensor strength across the board. Web/Neut Drones needs a buff to make them more Effective. Allow All Electronic warfare drones to be able to 'Assist' friendly targets. Blasters need a big tracking increase and/or a range boost. Retribution needs a more mid Slots and increased fitting stats. The Naglfar in order to effectively do any sort of damage compared to a Revelation that has good range and damage a Naglfar needs to Shield tank. A total redesign for the Naglfar so it can shield tank effectively, It needs a 5% CPU increase and base sheild Resistances need to be slightly higher. Sov Regions, I would like to see small-Medium sized pockets of sov space that don't hold any great value i.e. 64 moons. These small-medium sized pockets of 0.0 would be the perfect place for Smaller Alliance to branch out on their own and attack other ones of the same size with out becoming pets for a power block. E Sov mechanics need a redesign Most of 0.0 is unused and controlled by a power block so no one else is able to take space for long periods of time. I think a Limit on the amount of sov systems an Alliance can hold should be capped. Remove POS as a Sov claiming mechanic, Increase POS effectiveness to counter 50 man Dread Fleets to defend your moons (if pos no longer claimed sov) As the game gets older more and more people are able to fly Dreads and Titans, (Some Alliance have titans on constant build) In 2 years time we will end up having only Capital sized fighting, then we will see the Dreaded Capital killing DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. Perhaps if some new regions where introduced maybe something to do with Jove Race where no cynos are able to be activated in these regions, i think this would benefit the smaller non capital heavy Alliances in the game, and give the non power block Alliances a chance to claim something.
Destructor1792 Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:32:00 - [368] Top 3 eh... okay: 1. Projectile weapons - Just "lol" Bigger clip, increase in ROF, increase in optimal, increase in Alpha. Lets not forget that they suck big time (this is from someone who's only ever used Projectiles in nearly 5 yrs of gaming!!) 2. T2 Ammo - Remove the stupid penalties! Why use T2 when faction ammo does the job better??? 3. Projectile weapons - Yes, twice in my list.. AC's work in falloff so 1/3 DPS straight away! Arties have pitifull range, horrendous tracking And bugger all difference between the 1200 & 1400's! Leave the 1200's as they are & boost the 1400's for more optimal, better ROF & bigger clips. Increase tracking on both sets ______________________________________ Bringing The Fun Back [gold]I Have No Fear, That's your Problem[/go
il sakasanje Minmatar Breed of Malakka	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:33:00 - [369] 1. Large Projectiles (Or Minmatar BS?) 2. Pirate(Faction)-Ships 3. Blasters?!
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:34:00 - [370] 1) Large Projectiles 2) Titans need an additional consumable for Doomsday Devices to be fired...and this need to be only found in low sec. Maybe include an anchoring feature, so they can persist when the pilot goes offline and truely be a mobile base. 3) Right click contract only items and view contracts. 4) Agent Quality should be far more dynamic. Allowing for the highest quality agents to nearly always end up in low sec. This might forge low sec alliances (I have seen a couple in my time), that claim systems through "piracy" on other players. Players forming organizations to have saftey from pirates would become inevitable and low sec would actually become more secure. Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

mr passie Minmatar Purgatorial Janitors Inc. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:35:00 - [371] 1) large atrillery 2) Naglfar 3) rockets/defender missiles PJI is recruiting! visit ingame channel "purgatorium" for details
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:35:00 - [372] Originally by: Tzar'rim Passive EHP tanking, because just as with ECM and nano it's too extreme right now. The only viable reply to "how to tank in pvp" is "passive". Rigs are just too powerful and the amount of plates/shield extenders one can fit is too much. Lowering EHP tanking to a point where it's more even to active tanking would solve many problems. All of a sudden the passive totalhelldeath Amarr BS get tempered down due to using more PG for their tank and actually using cap for it. Minmatar get more evened out as well since base HP all of a sudden is less relevant AND it would help their capless weapons 'bonus'. EHP tanking has become silly and needs to be adressed. CCP reduced the damage from weapons along with other things so that fighting and pvp would be longer and more entertaining/interesting and keep pilots reasonably involved. If you reduce the available EHP that ships can fit so it is balanced with active tanking even battleships will be insta alpha'd in gang combat because active tanks are terribly weak against even relativly small ammounts of alpha DMG compared to EHP tanks and especially RR EHP tanks. I have 2 ideas really: 1. Increasing the other races ships so they have reasonably equal EHP available would be a better solution to balance things. 2. Reducing the fitting and cap cost of active tanking modules (armour reppers + shield boosters) so that they can be more easily fitted on many of eve's ships and do not "GIMP" their available fitting options would (i personally think) increase the amount they are used, thus increasing pilots willingness solo/very small gang pvp.
Martyn Brierfield	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:38:00 - [373] 1. Blasters in the current environment need some love. 2. Blaster boats need a buff. It was a sad day when I turned in my much loved Megathron for a Blaster Rohk. And don't get me started on how useless the Hyperion is. 3. AFK cloakers and cloaking in non covert ops ships. There should be some way even if difficult to detect a non covert ops cloak. Maybe make the non covert cloak use cap based on ship mass, this way large ships can't perma cloak. I find it absurd that something like a Titan (the most massive things in the game) can DD a fleet then warp to safe and cloak 100% safe while it recharges.
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:44:00 - [374] 1. Blasters and/or blaster ships. DPS is too low for such a short range weapon. Small blasters/blaster ships are ok, med and large are not. 2. T2 short range ammo. There is no point in using it. 3. All e-war is inferior to ECM, both in design and applied ship bonusses. x
Raxxius Maelstrom	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:49:00 - [375] 1. T1 Small ships By this I mean Cruisers and Frigates. Both of these ship classes have suffered heavily from the development of T2 ships. cruisers really suffer from the affordability of HACs, which are often massively superior to T1 and battle cruisers which fill the affordable role but bring vastly superior tanking and more DPS than a cruiser can hope for. Frigates suffer generally, even the T2 counterparts have a hard time. 2. T1 modules Well basic T1 in general is now suffering because so many of the player base can fit and afford T2. In many cases T1 just isn't competative. I'd suggest making T1 more akin to the current meta level of best named so the gap between T2 and T1 isn't so great. This problem is most noticable in weapons. 3. Active tanking Doesn't cut it in PvP as the number of reps required to match a buffer tank is too high. You could argue that buffer tanks are too good.
Forme Noir Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.18 12:56:00 - [376] 1. Large projectiles 2. Minmatar: beyond BC? LOL 3. Naglfar
Amantus Gallente Neckbeards International	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:19:00 - [377] 1) Blasters. They need a tracking boost to compensate the weaker webs. 2) Bonuses for specialised dampening ships. A 20% bonus would bring them back into line. 3) Armor resist rig vs shield resist rig prices. Anti-expl armor rigs are currently around 20m ISK. Anti-em shield rigs are currently around 5 mill. This allows shield resist rigs to be fitted onto shield--based assault frigates, but armor-based ones are left with nothing. The prices need to be brought in-line through balancing the amount of salvage components needed to make each type. ------------
n5000	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:33:00 - [378] 1. Nerf of spyder tank after ECM nerf is required: logistics and capital remote repairs 2. Naglfar 3. Titans - make anything with multiple DDs in the same place at the same time...
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:36:00 - [379] Originally by: Amantus 3) Armor resist rig vs shield resist rig prices. Anti-expl armor rigs are currently around 20m ISK. Anti-em shield rigs are currently around 5 mill. This allows shield resist rigs to be fitted onto shield--based assault frigates, but armor-based ones are left with nothing. The prices need to be brought in-line through balancing the amount of salvage components needed to make each type. That is actually a good point. Though armor rigs on blaster boats are very sucky due to the speed drawback. Change armor rig drawback to something else? ---
area51 Gallente Pilipino Corp	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:41:00 - [380] 1. Blasters! 2. Blaster Ships - (Die-Most et.al) 3. Projectiles!

Fancel House	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:11:00 - [381] 1 - Projectiles 2 - Mini Capitals + BS's 3 - E war drones.
Frater Sen	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:19:00 - [382] Minmatar BS + Artillery 1. Artillery - Artillery should have vastly better range, RoF and tracking at the cost of alpha. Right now: Reloading every 10 shots, poor range and dps. I dont think, that Artillery is in need of a higher Alpha... to high burst dmg = no fun in pvp. 2. Minmatar BS and the jack of all trades trait: No really tank specialization, split weapons systems, to much sp are needed to do the same dps or tankable dps as other BS. And even then: Other BS are a way better. In my opinion, Minmatar and their BS needs some specialization as well. How many years and sp are needed to fly the Typhoon kinda well? :) 3. Lv4 missions - risc vs. reward is unbalanced and the answer is *not* to move every lv4 mission to Rancor / low sec for giggles. The problem isnt, that the griefers/gankers are low on Carebears in space... they real problem: lv4s are to easy. The AI/NPCs are dumb, short: Lv4s should be more difficult - a real challenge for a solo ship.
Malfournis	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:26:00 - [383] My opinion, though I haven't PvPed in a while... ECM has too high a chance to lock down a target. Compared to the other EW, this has a far larger effect in the overall picture, as compared, especially, to recon ships. EW drones are largely a laughable lot. While they provide something, the amount of time to train them hardly offsets the tiny bonus they do provide. Given that ships (and modules) have changed since T2 ammo was introduced, it may be very worthwhile to look it up and think about tweaking it a bit here and there.
ChalSto LOCKDOWN. Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:45:00 - [384] 1. BLASTERS 2. ARTYS (large AC are fine imo) 3. ECM (stop the stupid randomnes) Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens."
Photon Ceray	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:47:00 - [385] 1- the most important thing in my opinion is making room for solo play in eve! just do it! 2- blaster ships (especially gallente) need a lot of love with the web nerf, deimos for example needs even bonus to mwd speed to get in range of anything. 3- t2 insurance, make eve losses less costing to encourage more players to risk their ships, undock and fight! (I am a pvper complaining about others not putting a fight because they're afraid to lose isk!). and this is a needed thread, thanks nozh.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:54:00 - [386] 1. A complete review of the relative balance of all turret weapon systems to their peers. Don't just make some graphs and say 'maybe this could be tweaked', you should go back to first principles and rethink the balancing weight of various factors when it comes to deciding factors like range, damage and so on. 2. Review the relative balance of all ship classes from Battleship on up. Again, rethink the weight given to various factors, like cost in materials, time to train for effective T1 and T2 fits, and role. 3. Ideally, all races should have offensive and defensive forms of electronic warfare. This is best seen in Gallente - warp disruption being offensive, sensor damping being defensive - and Amarr - capacitor warfare being offensive, tracking disruption being defensive. Caldari only have one defensive EW - ECM - and Minmatar have two offensive EW - stasis webs and target painting. In my opinion, target painting should be a Caldari thing due to it's great synergy with missiles, leaving Minmatar wanting for a defensive EW. I don't have a suggestion to replace it, but I'm sure the fertile minds of the players and devs can think of something.
Altris	Posted - 2009.04.18 14:55:00 - [387] 1. Rockets: need a boost in base damage and a huge boost in explosion velocity. I can understand being able to outrun much of the damage of a large, long-range missile like a cruise, but you shouldn't be able to speed tank rockets. 2. Reduce rig prices by a factor of 10. You should want to rig every single ship you fly, including T1 frigates and cruisers (remember why you gave them 3 rig slots compared to T2 ships' 2?) but nobody rigs a T1 ship because you can get ten hulls for what some rigs cost. 3. Give FW some attention. Look at the FOOM post in the W&T forum.
Sir Arland Solaris RGD FEDERATION SOLARIS	Posted - 2009.04.18 15:23:00 - [388] 1 - T2 ammo need revamp. 2 - rockets need to be boosted. 3 - make sentry at low sec gates more effectives to break some permanent gatecamping.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:02:00 - [389] Originally by: il sakasanje 2. Pirate(Faction)-Ships Bah how could I forget these? Please please please do a complete pirate faction redo along the same excellent lines as the Sansha boosts. Make my Bhaalgorn into the totally feared solo ship it should be. But please don't make it into another marauder clone like the Nightmare even though the Nightmare is absolutely awesome. Originally by: Achar Losa i might be just a 6 year old stupid boy, but he's a CCP dev writing in the forums!
Tweakalvos Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:06:00 - [390] Nothing needs to be fixed aside from the minnie capitals which are primary on sight. ECM nerf as of recent is nice. Sorry to say it but its much easier to curb stomp a falcon now. 0.0 warfare. As a person who started flying a bs for pos bashing as of late just seems tedious. I know its beaten with a dead horse. But needs to be fixed. Faction wars need fixed as well. No point in it. Just mindless killing. Better rewards for ranks and things. And really doesnt interest players into leaving low sec like intended.

Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:10:00 - [391] Split weapon systems: Even turret ships that have their one or two utility slots 'classafied' as missile slots need a boost. Years ago, I read a dev post on the forums that said CCP was looking into removing all missile damage bonuses and increasing launchers across the board do max damage. This would keep the missile ships as competitive as turret ships, and allow those turret ship users with near useless launcher slots another weapon/fit option. As an example, look at the megathron's single launcher slot or the hurricanes two missile slots. Most fits leave the two high slots empty (I don't, cause I love pure gank) ----------------- Friends Forever
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:16:00 - [392] OOh, just read another big one that many people overlook: Make 00 space more balanced, from North/South, East/West; from region to region; and within the various regions. As of now, we all know the money spots, we all know what regions suck, and it sucks when you're stuck in them. Thank god for exploration. ----------------- Friends Forever
MaxXx Gunn	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:28:00 - [393] -Proper ship usage, You should take modern naval ship types and transfer their roles into the game make them what they are supposed to be. The ability to fit a ship that does it all defeats the purpose of having ship types. Tech2 ship types would obviously be able to do more in this respect, for instance a force recon. A force recon would be able to performe better in a stand alone role than other ships since its purpuse is to be a rugged scout ship. Where as a battle cruiser would perform better in a fleet or gang atmosphere providing cover and fire support for the fleet. Its obvious that this was the goal initially with ship types and such but mass calls for nerf this nerf that end up changing ships based on whats the popular solo pwn mobile. -Stop listening to whiners, once you set ship types and roles that should be the end of it. Input should be on obvious exploits, bugs and game play issues, not "Why cant I have my cake and eat it too?". Additions in that respect should be brought about in new ship designs to meet the demands of differnt types of combat. -Crime and concord. Salvaging wrecks that are deemed by concord to be the property of the party who destroyed it should be treated as stealing because the wreck as a whole is property not just the loot inside. The bounty system is pointless in its current state, most people put bounties on themselves. If they do get a nice bounty on them they just have a buddy kill them and claim the money. Maybe if collecting a bounty was based off of a contract through an agent that had standing requirements there would be a more active bounty hunting community in EVE, effectively creating a perfession of sorts. You have to have standing with concord and the bounty hunting corp in order to use the agents enabling you to accept the contracts. The better the agent the bigger the bounty you have access too. make it so you can't bounty yourself, or maybe even your own corp mates to possibly reduce scamming. Lastly once a contract has been accepted the player is THEN exempt from concord action while hunting the bounty so they dont get concorded engaging in high sec. Then not just anyone can collect in high sec, only a bount hunter can which is why you have to have high sec standing with concord and anyone can collect in low/null sec because its not secure space....its the frontier.
Jettisoned Can Jenova's Witnesses	Posted - 2009.04.18 16:54:00 - [394] 1. Unguided missiles (rockets/HAMs/torps): Make them useful pvp weapons. High RoF, very high velocity but low flight time, but with the penalty of slightly large explosion radius. Also, T1 ships designed to use them. (T1 Khanid) 2. Static minerals: Low end minerals (trit) have become too expensive because it is too hard to move large distances. All sources anywhere near market hubs are depleted. Also, the moon mineral supply does not scale with the player-base. The more players in the game the more expensive T2 will get. Both can be fixed by revamping mining missions. Spawn large belts of veld in low end mining missions and spawn new asteroids that can be refined for small amounts of moon minerals in high end mining missions. 3. T2 short range ammo: cost and drawbacks make them worthless compared to faction ammo. _________________________ Did you really not have enough room for me? I'm only 1m¦.
Kurik C	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:01:00 - [395] 1) Capitals 2) Missiles 3) E-War
wavre	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:07:00 - [396] 1. Large Projectiles - the tracking is absurdly slow and the range is very short. So you basically have to sit still and pray the other guy does the same. And you'll still lose because you have poor damage. 2. naglfar - there is a reason why these are hardly ever used. The worst defences worst damage. They are embarrassing to the pilot. 3. DD needs to go it should be made to do something clever not just be used multiple times to KILL ALL.
Patrice Macmahon Colonial Marines EVE Division	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:18:00 - [397] 1) T1 Ships (frigs) and Modules (all) are not effective. Players only have the option to create T1 baseline modules to push to level II's. Its either T2 or Meta, and T1's are so far behind the power curve its not pleasent or funny. Introduce additional blue prints to upgrade T1's towards mid level meta status (like you do with the specialty drones), and require them to use additional manufactured goods. It would balance the production market. The only option to upgrade T1 frigs are the faction blue prints, and those are more cost prohibitive than a t2 ship, and less effective than a t2 ship. Bring prices back in line. 2) E-War, Its all over the place an highly unballanced in defence/effectiveness comparisons across the board. 3) Armor Tank to shield tank. Everyone Shield tanks supposidly armor tanking ships, no one armor tanks shield tanker ships... Lack of midslot armor mods for flexibility in armor tanking when compared to Shields (and the Passive shield tank VS Buffer Armor tank is not pretty either) The Intakis have an obligation to defend the Federation, but not to assult others on its behalf.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:31:00 - [398] My Top 3 Highsec: Level 4 missions need to be re-balanced. Currently far too much profit for non-existent risks. Highsec is almost completely safe, suicide ganking has suffered successive nerf's, players have no in game recourse to Macro'ers. Lowsec needs a serious buff. The NPC battleship spawn is a farce, perhaps drastically increase the likelihood of a faction spawn along with other matters. Artillery and Autocannons. Respectively give us back appreciable alpha, increase clip sizes and in the case of AC's give us some form of compensation for having to fight in falloff all the time (Lower fitting req's and no cap use just don't cut the mustard). Other The Nagalfar. Highsec Wardec exploits: Corp hopping, dec'ing your own corp with alts to raise costs etc... Needs sorting out. HP buff. needs to be undone in part. Allow Lowsec bomb use. Stealthbombers. You really missed the boat on them this time around. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Malarkie	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:47:00 - [399] Edited by: Malarkie on 18/04/2009 17:57:21 1) Matari L Ammo / Battle Ship class and larger 2) Missions 3) ratio of Empire <-> Low Sec <-> Null Sec activities, systems, risk reward Minmatar need some love in the Battle Ship Class and larger arena. Currently Matari Battle Ships don't have a "strong role" anywhere...PvE/PvP This is based off similar levels of SP...yes an ALL 5 Character can do some nasty dmg and have a Fricken huge tank...but...thats at ALL 5. Missions: This one is troublesome. I personally would rather see no "mission levels" anywhere. The difficulty level of the mission should be based off your standing with the "agent" you are running missions with. This would do 2 things. One..no more "corp" grinding for a higher level mission agent. You now just keep running missions for your current agent. the concept of agent quality should be greatly expanded upon. And...at the highest standings an agent is going to be asking you to do missions that are actually hard to accomplish solo if at all. This has NOTHING to do with the volume of ships to kill or dps to tank or dps to spit out...everything to do with actual difficulty. I see no reason why a max standing agent couldn't ask you to do a mission that requires on a shuttle to complete...as long as it takes you a week or more to actually finish..I don't see the issue. Or a mission that requires a dread or 2. Difficulty should not mean pew pew. It can mean that but that should not be the defining factor. Ratio...this one is hard to quantify but I firmly believe the number of "lowsec" systems should be greatly increased. This would mean far more "tiny off the beaten path" systems for lowsec. And this would mean it would be easier for hisec dwellers to find and start utilizing lowsec systems...which in turn would increase the targets the "pirate" professions would have open for them. Edit: did I just agree with Redsplat?
james126	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:04:00 - [400] Edited by: james126 on 18/04/2009 18:06:29 1) ecm, the ecm modules (withouth ship bonues) are to week, while with bonueses, they are to strong. 2) navy vexor can do 700 dps, either give other faction cruisers similer capabilities, or nerf this ship. 3) damps need a buff. especaily the recons/eaf.

Prometheus Exenthal Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:14:00 - [401] BALANCE RESIST RIGS Decrease the cost of armor resist rigs, or increase the cost of shield resist rigs, or put them somewhere in between. Right now it costs roughly 5mil for an EM Screen and 20mil for an Explosive Pump. That isn't right Fix it already. ROCKETS They are in serious need of some love. Damage and explosion velocity, thanks. THE DEIMOS This ship needs some love. My suggestion, swap the slot layout with the Zealot. This will give the Deimos a bit of a boost, but hardly hurt the Zealot since it's got its extra turret nowadays. - MY LATEST VIDEO - BATTLE CRUISE
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:14:00 - [402] 1) high sec carebearing 2) pos/sov mechanics 3) moon income
Cit'cen	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:22:00 - [403] Edited by: Cit''cen on 18/04/2009 18:23:07 1. Artillery & AC's It needs to be brought in line with other weapon systems. Its clearly the worst because it doesn't have ANY advantage from others beside no cap use. 2. Tanking in general: Active tanking you need to use Cap, more slots and more pilot management wheres the passive tank does not need pilot management, asks no cap and less slots but its more effective then active tanking. Also seeing that Harbingers, Brutix, Myrms (ships that supposed to armor tank) are shield tanking and suprisingly effective. Brutix can achieve ALMOST with 1 shield extender the same HP as a hurricane with 2 shield extenders and the brutix is a bloody active tanker. 3. Boosters Even with this patch, the good ones you want to pay for are way to expensive. A POS is needed for booster manufacturing which shouldn't be needed. Because of the POS it makes the whole booster production not fun to & way to expensive. Let us have the ability to do it in station. However POS is still a bigger advantage like you have that with LABS etc.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:33:00 - [404] PS, I also think RR's lack of aggression flagging should be looked at, as well as the fact that capital ships have the same 30 sec vulnerability after undocking as a frigate . Stimulus
Sakura Nihil Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:35:00 - [405] Oh, and local should not be used for intel gathering, please make it like W-Space plzkthx. Stimulus
POKER CHIP Haunted House BROTHERS GRIM.	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:00:00 - [406] 1. Alliance logo submission process requiring atleast 150 active members. what about those that want to keep it small and tight-knit? unbalanced? yes... and, i can just hire a bunch of carebears to fill the numbers and stop what were doing and wait for god knows how long for the logo to be noticed. 2. lolrockets 3. what is explosion velocity and where did it go? exp velocity of terror rages with all lvl5 skills = 130m/s.... iirc the explosion velocity of dynamite is 7700m/s. i think the scientists of new-eden might even be a bit more advanced then that eh. ----sig---- corp and alliance rec.
POKER CHIP Haunted House BROTHERS GRIM.	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:02:00 - [407] Originally by: Sakura Nihil Oh, and local should not be used for intel gathering, please make it like W-Space plzkthx. scary thought but that would be awesome :) ----sig---- corp and alliance rec.
Diamaht Nevain Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:15:00 - [408] 1. Blasters 2. T2 Ammo 3. Webbing at extreme ranges in w-space complexes make blaster boats almost unuseable. =============================== Two words: Internet Spaceships
Rek Esket GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:28:00 - [409] 1. Imbalances in the damage and alpha of large Artillery 2. Imbalances in the balance of Minmatar battleships and capitals 3. If your new super servers could reset and recalculate lock timers based on the application of a target painter, that'd be great.
something somethingdark	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:42:00 - [410] 1) Blaster its been talked to death ... visit one of bellums whine threads 2) Artys needs more alpha to offset the lack of dps and range 3) Recons a)pilgrim is still atrocious (and id take some more cap in the curse) b)arazu/lachesis arnt the strongest performers there are c)rapier/huggin got too punished by webby nerf im not gona say anything about falcon/rook because the change has been to recent

Zaenna Dark4ngel	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:45:00 - [411] 1) PROJECTILE WEAPONS - Boost them. 2) RAPIER/HUGINN - need love 3) COST OF RIGS - specifically component cost of shield and armor resist rigs are strangely disparate. Possibly lower cost of armor rigs by simply changing up their components.
Rookie Info	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:46:00 - [412] Mining, Loot reprocessing, Salvage and Rigs. Mining cannot compete with missioners. Missioners can get more loot and more ISK/time than even Hulkers. Industrialists can get more low-sec minerals from reprocessed goods than from miners. However, Industrialists are starved for salvage -- in part because many missioners neglect to use Salvagers. What about altering the balance of loot and salvage. Missioners could still realize the same or nearly the same ISK/time as now. There would be a greater need for mining, and there would be a greater supply of salvage. Energy Weapons: EM/Therm, EM/Therm, or EM/Therm Maybe expanding the selection of weapons is in order to afford their users with options beyond EM/Therm. Even today we have X-Ray lasers and Electron guns. In the future? What about T-Ray and Ion or Beta Particle Guns? Combat focused Like most other MMOs, EVE is hugely focused upon combat. What about introducing a new career path (Rangers?) where players can influence if not create storylines within the EVE universe? I hail amongst the maligned Carebear career path. It is true that EVE offers other viable paths of game play: Trading, Industry, Mining. Industry is very well developed. The glaring deficiency is the risk/reward for Material Research. Using NPC stations costs upwards of two months or massive ISKs. Using a POS costs around a billion ISKs for the initial set up, and it could all vaporize with a war declaration. For Trading there is not much to "spice it up," beyond maybe Asset Consolidation through Teamsters. Mining is boring, unless you are mining in low sec. It could be fun to "find something out of the ordinary" like old ship logs, criminal or empire tags, or even a beacon to an Expedition. Please add a hot link to Rookie Info in your bio.
Caelwrath	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:53:00 - [413] 1) Lower the cost of all ships across the board - you will get more pvp, and more people into pvp. For those of us with jobs/lives/family/studies/whatever this game is difficult to commit to given the cost mechanics. 2) Minnie ships - in general with the speed nerf, the web nerf, the sucky projectile damage output (really arties here), the whole class needs help. 3) Maybe boost active tanking slightly to give it a roll again in PvP (don't nerf passive or no one will tank and this will DPS-online).
MSpock Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:13:00 - [414] Originally by: Grez 1) ECM drones (compared to other EW drones, they are superior) 2) Armour tanks vs. shield tanks (in a large majority of cases, a armor tanking ship is superior to a shield tanking ship) 3) DCU - has CPU requirements akin to a passive module (make it passive <3) fyp
Sola Sun X0 OPS	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:16:00 - [415] 1) Limit daily CONCORD bounties per account. Since client code leak, bot programs create 200+ m ISK per day with zero risk. 2) "Duct tape and glue" rig effects should use SINGLE BEST effect. Will affect insane passive tanks, and bring some sense to t2 rigs use. 3) Non-covert cloaking on ships should use lots of resources (like, consume 100% capacitor with 0 regen, can not move when cloaked, decloak radius depends on actual ship's signature).
kessah The 14K	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:19:00 - [416] Personally my 3 things are. 1) ECM - its an improvement with the falcon, but unfortunetly ECCM doesnt protect you enough, which leads me on to my next one... 2) EVE makes it very difficult to kill as a small or solo roaming player/gang. Especially as ECM and blobs can lazily be thrown at you for an easy defeat. Theres just not enough there to stop people from throwing numbers at a problem. 3) Active tanking could use a boost tbh, Large armour repping is so cap intensive and really should it? it offers such a nice change to buffer tanks but really too run the kinds of tanks that can hold off the blob you need to run dual injectors for Battleships. There are many more, such as the Tempest being completely outclassed, Large Autocannons just not cutting it compared to the other races large guns etc i could go on tbh, but i think those are my top 3.
Hikash Gallente The Mystarans	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:20:00 - [417] 1) Pirate ships. Guristas line in general requires quad skilling (Two different ship skills, two different weapon skills). I know that Caldari are, RP-wise, not that far off from Gallente. At least in the weapon system department, considering a few Caldari ships are hybrid-focused instead of missile focused. I believe it'd be a good idea to revise Guristas ships primarily, switching them to a missile or hybrid system instead of split-weapons like Minmatar. After a Guristas revisal was done, I'd say to move onto to the rest, it may be a good idea to look at the Sansha ones as well. The main differences between a Nightmare and a Paladin are the lack of T2 resistances, 40km tractor, cargo space and tanking type. Additionally, I'd like to see some pirate faction ships introduced that made use of different race combos. The only ones not used are Amarr/Gallente and Caldari/Minmatar. Maybe we can see some like EoM ships? I know I'm not the only one who'd like to fly a Death Lord into combat. 2) Tech II Missile Launchers. Unless you're a fan of T2 missiles, namely the Torpedo ones, it's essientially pointless to use Tech II launchers over faction ones unless cost is an issue, or you have the Tech II skill at 5. Also, the signature radius penalties essientially turn you into a Las Vegas sign, which makes using them in ships that don't have very small signature radius figures to begin with, a bit unwise. 3) NPC Electronic Warfare. They're not kept to the same balance changes that players have been over the years. There are still instances IG where pirate HACs can continuously spam their faction's racial EWAR. Depending on your strategy/ship and the pirate HAC, you can either be permanently shut down, or just simply annoyed. I speak of things such as permacyclejamming Guristas HACs and 100km damping Serpentis ones, which can knock you down to a 100s lock time, and 16km targeting range.
keepiru Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:21:00 - [418] Edited by: keepiru on 18/04/2009 20:25:58 Fix rockets, they're hilariously poor. The combination of aiming a single-size weapon at a dps lower, when bonused, than that of an unbonused 125mm autocannon (the smallest) plus the launch-time delay of 1 second cutting a full 33% range has left them the province of people who either dont care or dont know any better, with predictable knock-on effects on the malediction, hawk, and vangeance. Also, fix the bloody Raptor, it needs a MAPC to fit 125mm rails and an MWD, did its fittings even get looked at in the last 2 years? Its not like its a solopwnmachine, it does wet-paperbag dps even with 150s, so for gods sake let it fit the damn peashooters. Finally: Dramiel. 5 High slots. 2 turrets. 3 launchers. 3 turret bonuses. Do I have to draw you a picture? Addendum: since bombers are now useful, time to finally add faction painters, after a short delay of only a few years? ... and I really think they should boost T2 plate HP.
glas mir Reaction Scientific	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:48:00 - [419] 1) t2 ammo t2 ammo and t2 guns should be separate. T2 ammo is essential and it has too long of a critical path for the new player. 2) sov warfare is boring 3) tactical warfare There should be more tactical decisions for individual pilots.
Spenz Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:00:00 - [420] 1. Blasters 2. Projectiles (especially large artillery) 3. T2 close-range ammo (absolute waste of space, isk, materials) If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...

Zanquis Caldari Universal Exports Cult of War	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:32:00 - [421] Railguns - These need to be buffed one way or another. They currently have high capacitor drain, terrible tracking, tied for low dps (worse then Arty once you account for ship bonus), and low alpha. This doesn't hold true for every class of Rails, but it does hold mostly true. I would suggest increasing dps through ROF and making them much more cap efficient. This would leave the difference between Arty and rails with Arty having the alpha and zero cap usage, with rails having a slight damage advantage, range, and low alpha. Missiles - These have changed considerably with many of their former strengths being mitigated while they took a further dps. Missiles can now be mitigated by use of a simple speed module, defenders where improved, smartbombs skill kill missiles, and missiles are now more size sensitive then they used to be and hit smaller targets for less. Furthermore with the brutal damage lag of missiles vs instant damage of turrets it allows for things like outrunning missiles (RARE) or warping away before impact. Missiles should now be allowed to hurt considering all their additional disadvantages. Shield Tanking - This is the red headed stepchild in PvP. It is a solid tank but its lack of use on most ships combined with the brutal inefficiency of shield transfers makes them unlikely to receive support. The buffer tank while able to regenerate on shields lacks the HP buffer of a pure armor tank, and its passive regen does little to compensate for the lack of support in a fleet battle. However it is great in small scale engagements on a few ships. One issue with shield tanks though is in trying to fit a formatable tank to stand on its own, you use too many slots (LSE's don't give enough for battleship class tanks) and have very little utility to speak of. This is one of the reasons Shield tanks are generally chosen as the early primary targets, because they will go down fast. ---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
Draskuul Vrallis Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:33:00 - [422] Edited by: Draskuul Vrallis on 18/04/2009 21:32:48 1. Projectile weapons. No point going into details, I'd just be repeating 90% of the posters in this thread. 2. Naglfar. As soon as my current Nag pops, I'm switching to a Revelation and never looking back. 3. Missiles in PVP. Again, this has been covered in detail by most of this thread already.
Mr Vor Killswitch Inc	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:35:00 - [423] As people before me have said allready. 1. Blasters. 2. Titans. Not just the DDD, which is FUBAR. But the whole ship. By design it's just crap and is in need of a complete do over. Do it again - do it right. 3. Sov mechs. I'm sure, as it is now, is not what you intended.
cyonida	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:45:00 - [424] 1) GTCs / buying isk. It is absolutely stupid that people can use their RL money to acquire isk. I know it is difficult to stop isk sellers, but I think the GTC trade should stop. It is a covert, CCP endorsed way to buy isk and it is ruining the economy IMO. People can lose ships with impunity as they simply sell another GTC. This gives an unfair advantage to people with a large disposable RL income. 2) Macro miners/missioners. Again, these ruin the economy. 3) Webs. Change them back to the way they were pre-nerf. This would solve a lot of the current problems regarding blasters/projectiles. Blasterboats are supposed to be able to MWD up to their target, grab them, and beat them to a pulp. Counter this by having a buddy set up to tank web the blasterboat and use a ship that has ranged weapons kill the blasterboat. This is balance. The changes to webs were completely unnecessary. When you change something and it doesn't work, it is ok to go back to the way things were. Instead, we seem to change things and say "Well that didn't work. Oh well, what can we change next?"
Sleyn Peade Twilight Fleet Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:08:00 - [425] Problems in eve, how sad that we're limited to three things 1: Highsec ice fields Aside from being macroheavens, another issue: Iceproducts mainly end up as POS/cap-fuel, and in eve right now, quite a lot of blobbing is going on. Gamemechanics have a large part in this, but it's also fueled by the massive supply of cheap macroed capship fuel. We have a system in eve, where the macrofarming plague is feeding the blobmentality of eve. I'm not known for my lack of an imagination, but even I can't come up with an example to describe how dumb that is. Also there's no reason for the icebelts to be in highsec, they mainly supply cap/POS fuel, things mostly from lowsec or 0.0. The market-effect would be: Safetyfixated macroers would switch to oremining, so in the end that'll switch the macroplague from fueling blobwarfare, to them driving down mineralprices and thus supplying the PvP'ing lot of us with cheaper ships. T2 prices would go up due to POSfuel becoming more expensive, but T1 prices would plummet equally, and isn't T1 supposed to be cheap and T2 expensive?? I don't understand why icebelts remain in highsec, I can only speculate that it's some form of CCP scheme, due to being afraid to loose macroer subscribers. -->Remove highsec icebelts 2: "Highsec" POSs Deathstars in places without capitals makes no sense, it being possible isn't the overall problem, however it being easy is. It's not "that" hard to get the standing for it. -->What's really needed is for it to be more expensive, like a 10- or 20-doubling of the number of faction-charters needed Also, WTF is with charters being needed for 0.4. 0.4 already has a built-in penalty in the sense that one can't moonmine there. -->Remove charter-requirements in 0.4 3: The secstatus-system A good idea, implemented poorly. The secstatus-system should be quite simple: RP on In areas in partial or complete control by CONCORD, killing civilians makes you loose secstatus, and killing (NPC)pirates makes you gain secstatus. RP off Enter CCP, managing to fail at implementing that. A problem these days is highsecganking, the indirect problem is not the secstatus-loss, or its size, it's the fact that many of the people doing it live in 0.0 and can just go home, rat a bit, and the secstatus is back. You can't loose secstatus in 0.0, RP on it's outside concord control RP off, so why is it possible to gain secstatus there? Highsec should be a concord area, unless you're sent by concord to kill (NPC)pirates, it shouldn't award secstatusgains at all. Being on a mission for a random faction is fullfilling that corporations interest, not concords. Lowsec is where secstatus's lost, and it should also be where it's gained. -->Remove secstatusgains from mission-NPCs and from 0.0, and perhaps increase it in lowsec. That'll also drive some people from highsec into lowsec, as well as annoying highsecgankers The penalty size: The recent twist in making it dependant on secstatuslevel was not severe enough. In lowsec pirates refrain from thoughtless murder at times, that really ruins the atmosphere. -->Double the secstatuspenalty in highsec, halve it in lowsec Once people decide to pirate, it should stick, to a point at least. -->One can't gain any secstatus the first 72 hours after losing any A problem in lowsec, with pirates using POSs to base out from: Antipirates, with their secstatus being important, don't go knocking on POSs because of this. -->Remove the secstatus-penalty for agressing/destroying POSs, pos-equipment, stargates, stations, stationsentries/gatesentries/billboards This will also allow people to flag themselves withno secstatusloss. Two people who are not blinky and care about their secstatuses won't engage eachother, something rather strange in a PvPgame 3 examples of things in eve that make less sense than a swimmingpool full of inflatable dartboards.
arbiter reformed Minmatar THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:14:00 - [426] what a hard question this is. artilleries, nothing needs to be said here need help in almost everything motherships, generally need help they have little role in 0.0 warefare now with the sixe of blobs that you see. field, command ships are far too expensive and dont offer much advantage if any over a tier 1 bs or a tier 2 battlecruiser, not to mention the balancing issues between these ships, ie the nighthawks pg
Merina Taom	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:19:00 - [427] Minmatar battleships, large AC, large artillery and Naglfar all suck in variying degrees.
Zanquis Caldari Universal Exports Cult of War	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:32:00 - [428] Edited by: Zanquis on 18/04/2009 22:33:00 Originally by: cyonida 1) GTCs / buying isk. It is absolutely stupid that people can use their RL money to acquire isk. I know it is difficult to stop isk sellers, but I think the GTC trade should stop. It is a covert, CCP endorsed way to buy isk and it is ruining the economy IMO. People can lose ships with impunity as they simply sell another GTC. This gives an unfair advantage to people with a large disposable RL income. 2) Macro miners/missioners. Again, these ruin the economy. 3) Webs. Change them back to the way they were pre-nerf. This would solve a lot of the current problems regarding blasters/projectiles. Blasterboats are supposed to be able to MWD up to their target, grab them, and beat them to a pulp. Counter this by having a buddy set up to tank web the blasterboat and use a ship that has ranged weapons kill the blasterboat. This is balance. The changes to webs were completely unnecessary. When you change something and it doesn't work, it is ok to go back to the way things were. Instead, we seem to change things and say "Well that didn't work. Oh well, what can we change next?" For point 3 use Warp Scrams now. I've been doing that and nobody gets away. Its a bit tougher with a Mega where you will need support to use a ranged point first, but once the warp scram is on them with a web, they are going nowhere. AB speed mods still work to get away, but they will spend forever trying to get away and one burst of the MWD will catch you back up. Changes to warp scrams are awesome now, I encourage you to try them because they have 2 points of scram and lock out MWD's from being used. ---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
Captain Campion Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:38:00 - [429] Edited by: Captain Campion on 18/04/2009 22:39:35 1. Faction Cruisers are useless 2. T2 Ammo has harsh penalties for little extra dps 3. Tier1 BC need a role 4. Make the Suitcase passive 5. Need an immunity to scramblers module for blaster ships
Kateryne Minmatar Nisaba Syndicate	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:52:00 - [430] 1) Making ECM less of the final say in EWAR and more of an equal value along with the other 3 racial types. This would also involve making TP do something better. 2)Sorting out a lot of t2 models to use better t1 hulls. Springing to mind are things like Nighthawk using the Ferox hull when it should clearly use the Drake, Eos doing the same but with Brutix/Myrm wrong way round. 3)The majority of the new visual/sound FX are, to be brutally frank, annoying. Go through and make a list of preference for old/new and then sort them out accordingly.

E Vile	Posted - 2009.04.18 23:00:00 - [431] Edited by: E Vile on 18/04/2009 23:04:55 1. Nighthawk- Can really use a 7th launcher and some Grid love so it actually can fit a gang mod. 2. Warp scrams/disrupts being med slots- Would be real nice if us shield tankers didn't have to gimp our tank to fit one. Can we get one moved to a high slot? 3. Damage bonus to Caldari missle boats being kinetic only- Ammar hac gets multi type damage bonus yet the missle king caldari never get more then kinetic. My biggest annoyance- Character transfers. I really wish people all had to level their own characters and let those super old characters that keep changing players die.
Iragael Gallente The Miner's Paradise	Posted - 2009.04.18 23:13:00 - [432] 1/ destroyer, they're useless 2/ faction frigate, cost too much to be usefull 3/ T2 ammo
Tekashi Kovacs Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.04.18 23:28:00 - [433] If you pvp without Warp scram you are an idiot - its truth, but its wrong, there shouldnt be any must have module. Also now they work as old scram + web, both in one mod, so its definitely ******ed design. So simply: 1) balance Warp scrams 2) balance Warp scrams 3) balance Warp scrams 4) boost blasters!
Daminma2 Perkone	Posted - 2009.04.18 23:41:00 - [434] If you do nothing else, T2 ammo. Other than that, Projectiles Blasters
Mikael Izra'il	Posted - 2009.04.19 00:05:00 - [435] 1) High security risk/reward balance: Downgrade it and make low sec a viable option for... Well, anything. 2) Rockets: They are simply broken. 3) Ewar as a whole : Buff damps specifically
Jodie Amille Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.04.19 00:10:00 - [436] 1. Artillery of all sizes - worst dps, worst tracking, small clip sizes 2. Rebalance racial weapons systems. AC's(esp large) do less close range AND long range dps than pulse lasers to the point where being able to do explosive damage doesn't make up the difference. Blasters barely do any more dps than pulse(generally) despite their much shorter range. 3. Rebalance the faction ships to the performance level of the Sansha ships --------
Alyna Stormwind Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.04.19 00:11:00 - [437] Blasters T2 Ammo Balance missions (make it so it much much rewarding doing them in low sec/null sec)
AfroOfDoom Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 00:29:00 - [438] 1) Missiles - un-nerf them 2) Empire / Low Sec / 0.0 - risk/reward factor is broken, fix it. 3) EWAR other than ECM - make it worth something then maybe ECM wouldn't be so over-used.
rubico1337	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:00:00 - [439] Edited by: rubico1337 on 19/04/2009 01:01:48 1. lvl 4 missions WAY to much reward for absolutely no risk, these need to be toned down 2. rockets need some extreme love, adding my support to others posting about it 3. nighthawk needs an extreme PG boost 4. buff damps! they are useless as of now sorry could go with only 3 but these are absolutely way out of line atm
Ben Booley Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:26:00 - [440] I just saw some old screenshots with engine trails and, well, where the heck have they gone? Bring them back! On a more serious note, 1) Arties are terrible. Worst range, dps, and tracking 2) The deimos / blasters should be looked at. I don't see any reason to ever fly a deimos over a zealot as things stand currently. 3) ECCM. Unlike all other ewar counters which give a bonus to your ship even if you aren't being hit by the ewar, ECCM does nothing unless someone is trying to jam you. And even then the effect of the ECCM is limited.

Izuru Hishido Amarr ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:26:00 - [441] The bonuses on the Pilgrim Recon Ship, the engagement is far too easy to control with a single one of these. Ships that are supposed to be able to tank battleships can be solo-ganked by a single Pilgrim. "The point of war is not to die for your country, its to make the other bastard die for his."
MicroWarpdrive II Disorder. Shock Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:35:00 - [442] 1. Large Projectiles...increase tracking/falloff + add much more alpha to artillery. 2. Make tracking computers and tracking enhancers BOOST FALLOFF. Tracking disruptors already effect falloff there is absolutely no reason why a module exists to subtract from an attribute if there isn't one to add to it. 3. NAGLFAR - fix this abomination already. Give it +100 cpu, the ability to fit a shield tank, AND GET RID OF THE SPLIT WEAPON SYSTEM. I like the idea of 3 high slots with a 100% bonus to either xlarge autocannons or citadel torps so you could have the equivalent of 4 guns/torps + siege module. ALSO FIX SPEED TANKING CITADEL TORPS, its ridiculous that a carrier moving 100% speed gets an 80% reduction from citadels.
Kou Rien ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:38:00 - [443] 1) Drones- UI is sketchy and often you have to REPEAT orders multiple times for the bastards to actually work. ECM drones are far too strong. You never see sensor damp drones, target painting drones, and only occasionally do you see Web drones. 2)EWAR- Recent nerf is kinda cool, but making TP, TDs, and especially damps a little more usable would be nice. 3)Combat Command Ships- Whatever these ships can do, a T1 BS can do better. T1 BS have more damage, tank, and have that wonderful thing known as insurablity. Fleet Commands still have their uses; it's only the combat versions that need the help. Make them worth the extra money.
swisher Caldari Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:57:00 - [444] Edited by: swisher on 19/04/2009 01:57:04 1. Missiles. 2. Caldari ships' powergrid. (nighthawk and cerberus specifically) 3. Graphics. 1) sensor booster 2) eccm 3) pos shields 4) capital ships jumping
Anela Cistine Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 02:05:00 - [445] Destroyers - Make them useful. Right now almost no one flies them except for salvaging, and I'm sure that wasn't their intended role. "I'm flying a garbage scow into battle, hooray!" They just aren't that useful against T2 frigates, and T1 frigates are rarely encountered in fleet situations. Or, if garbage scow is their intended roll, give them bonuses related to salvaging rather than what they have now. Ewar Ships - These ships are supposed to have superior electronic systems, but they are no better at non-racial ewar than "ordinary" ships. That doesn't make sense. Give them a bonus the type of ewar their race specializes in, and a smaller bonus to the other three types. This would make all 4 races ewar ships more useful and versatile, while still retaining their racial distinctiveness. POS mechanics - Setting up and taking down a POS is pretty much the worst thing ever. Wrestling with the green box, zooming in and out so you can see where you are trying to go, then having to try to hit an arrow that is roughly two pixels high to drag it in the right direction. Then you finally push the button, wait 5 minutes, push another button, wait another 5 minutes, and start with the next horrible little green box. After you've anchored 20 or so mods you become convinced that the only reasonable explanation for this mechanic is that CCP loathes their customers. This is a balance issue, because the time it takes to drop and fully online a POS is the window that an opponent has to try to kill the tower before it can effectively defend itself. But there has to be a better way. The current mechanics are soul destroying. Terrible mechanics lead to burn out, which leads to people quitting the game. Gas harvesting ships - they don't exist. No ship gets any bonus related to mining gas. Huh?
Atreus Tac Quatidion Arkai Confederation	Posted - 2009.04.19 02:24:00 - [446] 1.) The general gameplay of 0.0. * POSs are boring as hell in every way possible and bring very little to the game * Moons, the high end moons are good but without the better moons its rather pointless as low-end = crap. * tied in with POS, more shouldnt mean better. IE a 20 man gang should be able to effect, to some degree, the fortunes of an alliance. * Make it easier for smaller allies to get into 0.0. tied in with pos mechanics. * Make it easier for newer members to get in 0.0, if a month old char come to a old 0.0 corp/ally they will have almost no role, hic/dictor are the tackle there and the dps comes from Hacs battleships. Where does a cruier or frig beomce useful 2.) level out weapons * Lazorz>than all at pretty much all ranges bar above 200km (rokh ftw) * Series of nerfs have hit blasters hard * large matar guns plain suck. 3.) I want to see more role for a battleship over a HAC recon * first level out recons - amarr and caldari Pwn here everyone knows. * give a more diverse role for battleships, scorp is the only ship that is not there just to dish out DPS, in fact make all battleship ranges more like caldari. Ewar-sniper-multipurpose. a good example os amarr, there BS ships are more alike than any other range of ships, gank/tank and one with a bit more range. but 0.0 for me is a must and also that is kinda more than 3, but hey. __________________________________________________________ -Cheers- Atreus Tac http://wearerunning.mybrute.com
Great Smirnov	Posted - 2009.04.19 03:11:00 - [447] 1 minmatar concept as total. it doesn't satisfy the description "more raw firepower over everything else". dps of all projectiles suck badly. autocanons can do some damage on paper calculations but that damage should be cut off by half because they forced to be used in falloff ranges. artillery horrible in all cases, both pvp and pve, tracking suck badly, damage suck, clip reload suck. seeing whole the time "barely scratched" hits around 300-500 from a ship that supposed to deliver 3500 with i blow isn't fun. spike damage isn't really excuse, 1 battleship may have luck to kill a frigate with that spike. cruiser survive spikes with easy by outmaneuvering, bs ignore that laughable damage and dps. that isn't a spike at all, in all games where spikes are legit tactics balancing is always ensured that 3-4 players should be able to kill 1 enemy with single collective alpha. basically if 1 full strike of arty ship kills whole shield of the enemy in the same size then you can start to call it a spike. all autocannons eat too much ammo which makes them useless in 0.0 space where ammo supply is a big problem and very costly to run missions in highsec. close range t2 ammo suck badly, cap and speed penalty makes them worthless. cmon, close range IS about speed and tank. battleships are way underpowered or too situational to be multi purpose. tempest concept is semi broken, full weapon load is impossible with armor tank because of the lack of powergrid and the tank still be weak, valuable shield tank is impossible due to lack of med slots. so its only role is fleet battles where the own regenerative tank doesn't matter. maelstrom being a good tank can not deliver the damage because of the lethargic tracking of the artillery. therefore its only useful role is primary tanker on lvl 5 missions or explorations. typhoon only has 1 actual bonus, all other ships get 5% per level on total damage and additional bonuses for tracking or tank, but since typhoon forced to have mixed weapon system both bonuses only give that 5% for total damage and nothing else. also even if multiweapon ship sounds nice as concept it makes useless if you want increase your damage via gyrostabs or balcons or fitting tracking computers because it actually gives only half the earning. despite that its the only ship that valuable to do lvl 4 missions, curious enough being designed as armor tanker it doing way better as passive shield tanker. and even then typhoon is far from being compared on the same level of efficiency to raven, dominix or abaddon/apocalypse. my personal opinion is to rework the role of typhoon either as missile spammer with bonuses similar to caldari or drone boat similar to gallente/ammar. 3 weapon system ain't a bless, really. 1 med slot more would be also nice. 2. EW aside of jammer should have their value. minmatar own EW kinda sucks, although it has some uses for missiles it is nearly pointless for all other weapon systems, especially for projectiles a single web will do way better than 3 target painter together. more signature is not enough, it should increase the damage factor like getting significantly more percentage for precise hits and wreckenings. gallente dampener are nearly useless, even on arazu they are way less effective to be of use. either make them more effective by increasing the base value or rework them for example as little brothers of jammers so they cause the ship to loss its target locks, but without blocking the possibility to target anew, which will actually annoy other pilots and force them to lock the targets over and over again and again. 3. medium size drones were nerfed to death. make them back useful. garde sentries are pointless, they lack tracking to kill orbiting targets and lack range to kill incoming ships. sentry drones tracking is also issue. t2 bouncer has tracking of 0.012, which is slightly more then arty without skills and way less then "all skills on 5". which makes them even worse than arty, that suck.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.04.19 03:32:00 - [448] 1.Minmatar 2.Arty 3.lack of Ewar ships Minmatar - we need refocusing, right now our racial strengths are kinda scattered not working properly. For example jack of all trades yet we perform worst/poor in many areas often cause our ships are doing something aside from their main purpose: haulers (we tank/go fast), logistics (we go fast), ewar (we tackle), sniping, carriers, dreads. Also lots of inconsistencies like the fastest cepter being amarr, the best alpha bs being amarr, sigil vs wreath, marauders got our ewar are kind of a problem. Arty - We need alpha back or give them some sorta advantage over the other weapon systems. our alpha is our main advantage yet I get the feeling that you don't want arty to do alpha as ppl will complain that battles involve warp in blow up grab a new ship. I started thinking this after seeing alpha nerfed, hp buffed, mael get out alpha'd by abbadon and vargur unable to fit arty. If we aren't gonna have alpha then at least give arty something else unique that makes them a good weapon to fit. lack of Ewar ships - This has nothing to do with recent falcon changes. Right now the problem I see is we have somewhere between 2-10 proper ewar ships in the game and most of them focused in one race. The problem is the current recons aren't actually ewar support but are more of a hybrid between an ewar ship and a hac. For example neither the gallente/min use their racial ewar (SD/TP) much and act as a sort of super tackler instead. The amarr recons are more of the hybrid using both of their ewar (only reason they do this is because TP/NOS use different slots). The falcons are what I would like to see in a true ewar ship, another good example is the logistics ships. When fitting a logistics ship you go for logistics first survivability 2nd, fitting weapons and ability to solo don't come in to the average logistics fit. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2009.04.19 03:50:00 - [449] 1. Revise low-sec security status mechanics somehow to make anti-piracy viable. I've stated my case on this for years now, so I won't bother repeating myself again here. Just do it. 2. Between jumpclones, the relative ease of large-scale logistics thanks to jump freighters and jump bridges, and an overabundance of capital ships in general, any single 0.0 alliance can wield influence over far too large an area of 0.0. Some suggestions: (a) jumpclone cooldown time extended from 24h to at least 48h (b) all capital ships made persistent in space when their pilots log off there, and/or cloaks cannot be fitted to capitals (c) all jump-drive capable ships have their jump range halved (d) moon minerals expire after an extended period of time, requiring new moons to be re-explored (e) POSs revised into military and industrial types. Only military POSs can claim sov, a minimum of say sov 2 is required to place an industrial POS, and industrial POSs themselves have no reinforced mode and cannot be armed. 3. People are - in many cases - stupid and incapable of fixing themselves, so CCP has to do it for them: (a) a minimum character length for forum posts, excluding quoted material (b) harsher punishments for forum infringements, particularly trolling and inane spam; isk fines, in-game mutings, exposing of alts, more temp bans, more perma bans. (c) block/ignore options for entire corps and alliances, both on forums and in-game /Ben
Daisy Blossom Caldari Morbid Obssesion	Posted - 2009.04.19 04:13:00 - [450] 1. Risk VS Reward for lowsec 2. Make solo PVP viable 3. Make piracy viable (ie unconcensual pvp) 1. At present, the vast majority of EVE players live in high sec and with the amount of isk that can be made there with zero risk, why would they even travel to lowsec? 2. This may not be terribly constructive as I don't really have a solution to the issue, but the blobby warfare tactics that emphasize shear numbers over strategy mock this game's premise as a "thinking man's mmo". 3. See #1. Also, CCP has been nerfing unconsensual pvp little by little over time. I guess it makes sense, as the majority of people that pay for their game are carebears, however the reason many of us got into EVE in the first place was because of the dark, cold, make- your- own- way sort of atmosphere. Holding people's hands more and more just makes me wonder why we need more ex- WoW tweens in the subscriber base.

Haffrage Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2009.04.19 04:20:00 - [451] Edited by: Haffrage on 19/04/2009 04:25:26 1. Large artillery. It has NO niche besides capless weapons. Its "alpha" advantage is entirely on paper and very much lost when fighting other ships of the same class. Effectively in any engagement the most cost effective minmatar sniper battleship, the tempest, has the least HP of any sniper BS, the least range, and best of all the least dps, but it sure can run its guns a long time! (until it reloads I mean) A few resolutions to the large artillery situation I might suggest include: 5% optimal AND falloff bonus on the tempest, forcing a T1 ship towards only artillery or autocannons is a bad move IMO so the double bonus is necessary. More range means less range mods, means more options for buffers or reaching the extremes of other weapon platforms. If this results in a DPS loss combining it other suggestions to keep its DPS as it is would be ideal but really the 2 utility highs on the tempest are very very useful. 7th turret with grid to compensate on the tempest Artillery damage increase (Net DPS & volley damage increase) Artillery clip size doubling (More time between reloads and small increase in dps) Artillery damage & rof increase (Ideally resulting in higher DPS and greatly increased alpha strike, as well as more time between reloads) I specifically mention the tempest due to its price, but more specifically because the maelstrom without its rof bonus (Which I believe should be a damage bonus) leaves much to be desired. I tried to keep this issue focused, but frankly the tempest and large artillery issues go hand in hand and one can't be mentioned without the other. 2. Damp ships. My god you people gave the falcon 30% bonus per level with a cap reduction bonus while it could already sustain its ecm, it overflows with jam chance against half the ships in the game, and you left damp ships as they were? Cap use on damps and disruptors, combined with rails, is enough on any setup that it requires me to fit cap mods. People tried to justify not nerfing the falcon with its lack of a tank, those people never actually used arazus. 3. The hound could really use more CPU. I thought it was just balanced so it couldn't fit all its slots and fit a bomb launcher too, then I bought a manticore 2 hours ago and hey wow it can do all that and keep everything as tech 2. Not even remotely balanced.
daemix tetch	Posted - 2009.04.19 05:11:00 - [452] Edited by: daemix tetch on 19/04/2009 05:11:26 1) Gallente EWAR ships. Damps use the most cap amoung the EWAR modules and are generally ineffective. Boost 'em. 2) Medium/Large Blasters and their respective ships. The difficulties of getting into range are exacerbated by tracking and damage issues. 3) Large Arties. Magazine capacity, Range, Alpha.... More More More.
Gaiscioch Nova	Posted - 2009.04.19 05:13:00 - [453] 1. Minmatar Weapons need a buff 2. Minmatar BS need a buff 3. Minmatar Caps need sorting out.
Princess Xenia Caldari Scion Innovations	Posted - 2009.04.19 05:22:00 - [454] 1 - Moon mineral Alchemy is too limited in reaction types... we rely too much on 0.0 giants for high end materials... 2 - Capital-supercapital-Titan-Online Thanks to high end moons??? 3 - Where is the INDUSTRY OVERHAUL????????
Anabella Rella Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.19 05:25:00 - [455] Edited by: Anabella Rella on 19/04/2009 05:27:20 1. Artillery stinks to the heavens. Needs to be reviewed yesterday. 2. Split weapon systems on Minmatar ships. You have to train twice as long as the other races since Minmatar ships shield tank as well as armor tank, use projectiles and missiles and most also have drone bays. In order to get the max offense and defense you MUST train all 5 systems if you want to stick with your racial ships. Think I'm joking? Typhoon--enough said. 3. Revisit the missile explosion velocities issue. You overdid the nerf in QR. When a lumbering battleship can speed tank torpedoes there's something not quite right there.
Heimdal Galplen Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.04.19 06:03:00 - [456] 1. Projectile weapons. Espepcially artillery which is a joke. 2. Projectile weapons. 3. Projectiles.
Vlip Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 06:40:00 - [457] -L Arty and AC -Minmatar Capitals -Titans are still broken
Gragnor The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:03:00 - [458] ISSUE ONE. Minmatar projectiles. The speed with which ECM changes were implemented is a source of immense frustration to minnie pilots whose ships have been hammered by foolish past changes. Concerns about alpha strike ruining the game have to be discounted in the titan era. So, restore minnie artillery alpha strike. If that means changing bonuses for minnie bs so be it. Then have someone explain to me how amarr shorter range ships have better tracking than minnie short range ships. Utter nonsense. Amarr are the tanky, mid scale dps boats that grind minnie under their heel. Minnie are the smash and grab merchnats. We get in kill quick and get out. If we don't kill asnd get tackled, we die horribly. Of course, the maelstrom is an exception. SUGGESTED CHANGES FOR ISSUE ONE 1 - Restore artillery alpha strike as the reason why 10 highly skilled tempest pilots in a fleet have to be primaried. That is, an upwards adjustment of approx 15-25% alpha and adjust downwards rof accordingly to level out dps. 2 - Adjust minnie autocannon tracking so that if you fly fast near a maelstrom in a cruiser or above you get hit. No change to damage. No change to speed. Bring back the autopests! This will imply an increase in minnie dps in certain circumstances. 3 - Adjust Maestrom agility upwards. Keep the mass and speed the same for game balancing purposes but its a minnie ship. ISSUE TWO Minmatar dreadnought is an embarrassment. Weak tank and less damage than all the others. Split weapon and tanking systems. Make a decision about the tanking system and adjust slots to fit and then consider grid changes where required. Lift the siege artillery dmage modifier such that it does compartable damage to its peers. Its a shame that we can look so cool in such a **e ship. SUGGESTED CHANGES - Make the Naglfar a shield tanker. Take a low slot and give it two mediums. Keep the split system. Its minnie, it should be harder to get into and use more effectively. Adjust shield hit points upwards by 25% and adjust armor hit points downwards by 25% and CPU so it can fit a decent tank. - Adjust siege artillery modifer upwards so that artillery does more damage. Note four high slots plus siege module so we should do SIGNIFICANTLY MORE damage than 3 high slots plus siege on other dreads....... that's the reward for the extra skill tree maximisation. This will make the Nag a vastly more viable ship. No need for shield tanking bonus or any other changes. Just a reasonable tank matched with some serious gank. ISSUE 3. Minnie ewar is a joke. Target painting and tracking links. I mean seriously guys. SUGGESTED CHANGES** Try using a high slot for chaff. Use the snowball effect for visuals. Chaff surround your ship with chaff and thus lowers the signature radius making it take longer to get a lock and hit for less damage. Chaff can be countered through remote sensor boosting, smart bombs and bombs.
Bluemorphium Quantar Swords	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:25:00 - [459] Nerf ECM Drones, way to strong!
downsideunder	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:25:00 - [460] Nerf ECM Drones, way to strong!

HotThaiLady	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:26:00 - [461] Nerf ECM Drones, way to strong!
Ayaka Yatuko	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:26:00 - [462] Nerf ECM Drones, way to strong!
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:30:00 - [463] Originally by: Wang Jing Edited by: Wang Jing on 17/04/2009 11:18:22 1) Faction ships, other than the Sanshas, need to be updated, as many suffer from huge fitting problems, or awful bonuses/slots (i.e. the dramiel with 3 turret bonuses yet only 2 out of 5 high slots able to fit turrets, the cruor with a bonus to stasis webifiers yet only 2 midslots). This one, totally. 2) Gate jumping and logoffski. The one where you jump to a gatecamp and logoff and on a few times to receive a safespot where you can warp away 100% safe.
Gluecksbaerchi Quantar Swords	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:30:00 - [464] definitely ecm. take it out of the game
Ziva Nar'ni	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:31:00 - [465] oh yeah, ecm is bad. any lockbreaking mechanic is bad
Sigras	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:59:00 - [466] 1. Active/Passive Armor Tanking 1600 Rolled tungsten plates give you 4200 armor, and a large armor rep T2 with perfect skills gives you 800 armor every 11.25 seconds making your break even time 59.0625 seconds. (trimark armor pumps vs auxillary nano pumps make it 79.5710 . . . even worse) This is fine assuming that you're in armor/structure more than 59.0625 seconds however with the 58k armor/structure EHP (more or less) that your average active tanked armageddon has, youre looking at a break even point of 1000 incoming DPS or less! This isnt taking into count the damage drop required to free up the grid so you can even fit the modules, or the cap that the tank uses. 2. Spider Tanking ok, i can get past the fact that remote armor repairers are better per second than armor repairers, but what justification on God's great earth is there for them to be 28.7% of the fitting cost? So, from the data at hand, i can gather that its easier to transport whatever it is that repairs the armor on a ship 8.4 km to another ship than it is to equip a module that does 37.5% less on my own ship . . . wow 3. Level IV Missions I know there may be a lot of whining about this one, but i propose a compromise as a mission runner that i think will be fair and balanced. ***Changes* 1. Agents only have so many missions I'm thinking each downtime each agent gets randomly assigned between 7-12 missions per person that they can hand out. (seriously, how many times can the damsel get kidnapped?) 2. Missions generate half the "trash loot" they do now. Considering CSM reports show that 40% of all minerals come from refined trash loot . . . i think its understandable. 3. Missions give twice the LP that they used to. This may supplement the loss in minerals that the mission runners would suffer. 4. Add to the LP store I'm thinking two variants of each faction module: Amarr Navy Lieutenant Armor Repairer, Amarr Navy Captain Armor Repairer. (The Lieutenant variant would be only slightly better than T2) This would give more modules to spend LP on to prevent LP inflation, also i would like to see faction battlecruisers, like faction Tier 2 BCs *** I would really like some feedback on my ideas, what do you all think?
N'olive Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.04.19 08:00:00 - [467] 1 : Artilleries 2 : Naglfar 3 : T2 ammos _______________ Olivier C. - My Eve videos - Battlefieldz Serie (french-dubbed and Eve-themed spoofs)
Snowden Vel GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 08:01:00 - [468] 1) Please fix artillery. 2) The Naglfar is a joke. 3) Titans are still a terrible idea and DD weapons need further nerfs.
R4 D2	Posted - 2009.04.19 08:11:00 - [469] Edited by: R4 D2 on 19/04/2009 08:11:17 avoiding large arty/blaster which has had enough said (clearly needs fixing) 1. look into Insurance , maybe half the insurance payoff for when you die whilst doing something 'illegal' ie, concorded. and increase t2 insurance payoff???) 2. buff. Assault Frigates ,faction ships and all non combat Drones (excluding ECM, which are fine)boost web drone mwd speed etc. make facton ships more 'feared' 3. look into 0.0 one example, Change local in 0.0 from 'players in system' to players in constellation!!!
Captain Campion Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.04.19 09:32:00 - [470] Oh yeah the concord insurance thing, revisit that.

Koyama Ise Caldari Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon	Posted - 2009.04.19 09:50:00 - [471] Tech 2 Ammunitions T2 ammunitions have penalties that outweigh the benefits. An example is Conflagration, Void and Hail all have a 0.5 tracking speed multiplier on close ranged ammunitions, conversely, Scorch, Barrage and Null only have a 0.75 tracking speed multiplier which gives long range ammunitions better tracking than close range ones. Why do all T2 ammunitions required a tracking penalty? Malediction The ôAmarr Frigateö and ôInterceptorö skills bonuses on the malediction contradict each other. In the ôAmarr Frigateö bonus the ship gains a 25% bonus to rocket damage which inherently are close range munitions and thus would bring the ship into a closer range, however the ôInterceptorö skill bonus gives it both a 15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive Signature radius penalty and a 5% bonus to Warp Scrambler and Warp Disruptor range, and these two bonuses are for longer range engagement the Warp Scrambler and Disruptor bonus is obvious but the Microwarpdrive signature radius is only useful when the ship is not affected by either a Warp Scrambler or Stasis Webifier as it annuls the usefulness of the MicroWarpdrive. Faction Items (Both ships and modules) Faction weaponry with T2 power grid requirements for nowhere near the damage bonus, Faction Energy Neutraliser ranges not being the same as Energy Vampires (As well as a lack of Deadspace Energy Neutralisers), Faction Frigates and Cruisers having costs either similar or greater than T2 equivalents without nearly the gain. --- O.P. is made of fail c/d. Originally by: rValdez5987 I dont like your sig. It fills me with rage. I want it removed. Reported.
Alhambra Rainwalker Caldari Rosa Alba Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.19 09:52:00 - [472] Edited by: Alhambra Rainwalker on 19/04/2009 09:53:33 1) Minmatar issues: Artillery (bit more DPS and wtf alpha please in exchange for terrible tracking and range). Make fusion top tier ammo. Tempest (not quite cutting it), Typhoons shield/armor values need to be reversed. Target painting needs to be more useful. Naglfar needs to be fixed, make it artillery boat already. Nidhoggur and Thanatos could use something, both are lackluster compared to archon atm for just about everything besides fixing pos. 2) Titan Doomsday. Terrible idea and I¦m sure devs are now well aware of it by now. 3) Buffer tanks too strong, active tanks too weak. Nerf trimarks, boost repper rigs, make repairers easier to run [and fit] so you won¦t cap out right away but don¦t let people run something like 3 reppers perma from just cap regen either. Combined with pvp taking place at zoning spots with unchanged 30s-1m timers(another bad thing) it makes for a dull and terrible pvp experience especially in lowsec. Remote repair modules need to be harder to fit as well. And as finaly fix the faction ships already. There¦s tons of them that just suck or are just subpar.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:12:00 - [473] 1. Minmatar large wepapons, both types 2. minmatar battleships. (plenty of issues there) 3. give us back the much feared alpha strike from artys. make our long range ships feared again
Karanth Gallente Independent Fleet Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:41:00 - [474] Titans. As mobile jump vridges they're fine, but when they start doomsdaying in groups it gets terrible fast. Level 4 agents and their locations. Ammatar, for example, has nearly all of its l4 q20 agents in lowsec, like gallente and some other factions, while caldari have many in highsec all near each other still. Sovereignty needs to be removed from POSes. Make it like how militias do occupancy, or well anything else, as that would be better. Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans Sorry, no. You have to go into wormholes and get farmed by the new AI NPCs like everyone else...
Stelteck Minmatar Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:58:00 - [475] 1- Artillery. 2- Minmatar capital's ship. (especially nagflar). 3- Risk vs Reward in high sec.
Jacob Holland Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:03:00 - [476] 1,) Artillery Alpha Strike: Particularly with regard to Large Artillery. 2,) Active Tanking as a viable combat choice: Another victim of the hitpoint boosts, make the choice to fit a local Rep rather than yet another 1600mm plate more viable (or make the choice to fit a 1600mm plate over a local rep less viable). The same consideration should also apply to shield tanks. 3,) Mineral source balance: Remove all basic T1 items from loot tables and replace with named. Reduce the mineral yield from refining named modules. Introduce t3 modules/rigs which require new materials obtained from refining rogue drone alloys, remove mineral yield from rogue drone alloys. Slightly increase Tritanium yield from Veldspar refining to reduce tritanium prices. 40% of minerals come from refined loot; Veldspar is, by far, the most profitable ore to mine until you get down to the very valuable nullsec ores; many believe that, particularly since the introduction of salvage, L4 missions are far too profitable - and certainly they seem to be farmed far more than they used to; Tritanium prices rather than "more difficult to obtain" highends define the profit/loss curves for most T1 manufacturing. -- Originally by: cordy Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
James Duar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:04:00 - [477] Edited by: James Duar on 19/04/2009 11:06:46 Minmatar Battleships, Large Projectiles, The Naglfar. EDIT: A good start would be adding about 2,500 PG to the Tempest.
Towelieban Minmatar D00M.	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:05:00 - [478] 1) Titans need some balancing or just plain removing. if removed introduce limited Jumpbridge to motherships aka x volume per hour. or change the dd mechanic to a version of a siege module say a 60 sec timer. 2) t2 ammo the side effects usually do not out way the added damage you get from the high damage versions. in most cases you are better of using faction ammo as it does not have the severe penalties. 3) Hybrid weapons cap usage is too high. and the blaster tracking is sub par.
Towelieban Minmatar D00M.	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:06:00 - [479] 1) Titans need some balancing or just plain removing. if removed introduce limited Jumpbridge to motherships aka x volume per hour. or change the dd mechanic to a version of a siege module say a 60 sec timer. 2) t2 ammo the side effects usually do not out way the added damage you get from the high damage versions. in most cases you are better of using faction ammo as it does not have the severe penalties. 3) Hybrid weapons cap usage is too high. and the blaster tracking is sub par.
acompton Gallente Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:29:00 - [480] 1) Gallente Recons need rebalancing the long range tackle thing is interesting but not all that useful for that level of a ship in actual gameplay (you usually have some low SP players around in fast ships to tackle) Thus one inevitably flies something else, mainly due to the fact that the damps aren't that useful except in very specific situations. you need to buff the damp bonuses JUST for the gallente recons (dont want to make then broadly "too good" again. I would suggest slight damp strength boost and allowing gallente recons to use a special scripts that gives bonus to both resolution dampening and range again... 2) Relook at the ship bonuses targeted role of Fleet Command Ships still too much tendancy for people to plug an alt into the command structure in a system and leave them parked at a POS for the bonus, need to possibly buff their tanks a bit more (possibly make them harder to target/smaller than normal target) to encourage them to be on the field. really only 2 from me

Kerkar Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.19 11:35:00 - [481] 1. Naglfar seems silly and needs fix asap (minny carrier isnt too bad as its got epic rep ability and the dps bonus on the thanatos doesnt apply when fighters are assigned i believe) 2. Faction ships apart from Sansha. Mainly the guristas ships with their useless split weaponry. Also fitting on things like the Ashimmu. Beyond that i want to say DO NOT TOUCH THE PHOON! It is one of the best battleships around, able to multirole effectivly for one. Yes it does need alot of skills but you can do oh so much with it once you have them.
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:36:00 - [482] Originally by: ArmyOfMe 1. Minmatar large wepapons, both types 2. minmatar battleships. (plenty of issues there) 3. give us back the much feared alpha strike from artys. make our long range ships feared again lol - I remember the forums when 5 tempests could insta-pop most other BS. You want that back? _____________________________
Zetler Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:36:00 - [483] All EW drones are useless expect ECM drones, would be nice to see some1 actually use eg. web drones?
Viskov Kyvarri	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:42:00 - [484] 1.) Give the pirates and "hardcore" players something to do in Low-sec. 2.) Get rid of Local in systems < 0.5 3.) Slightest boost to missiles in PvP would be nice. 1.) From what I read seems like Low-sec-Null-sec playabilty is terrible, being able to engage at will and fight equally skilled and possibly even better pilots and ships fit for PvP is a turn off. I propose an in game browser mini-game be implemented to help entertain the nefarious yet "neccesary" evil while they sit at the gate waiting for the illprepared and often unskilled preferred targets of oppertunity. (hi-sec carebears?) 2.) Local shouldn't be an information resource.. The new scanning implementations make it trivial to find people lets give us a reason to use it! 3.) Missiles need a little loving maybe a 3%-5% increase on explosion velocities and radii isn't asking too much.
JonnyKay Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.19 13:01:00 - [485] 1) Tempest Sucks 2) Projectiles suck 3) minny capitals suck yes i know i've gone all for the minmatar stuff, but something needs fixing..
Lallante Reikoku Reloaded KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.19 13:16:00 - [486] Pilgrim/Curse (should be exempt the changed nos rule and therefore be able to nos to 0, OR should be given a bonus that leaves neut cost at 0 or close to it). Also make tracking disruptors hugely better / different Smartbombs/Defenders - comedy option but definitely need a look at/revamp. They were both originally designed as a mechanic in 2002 and havnt changed substantially since even though the rest of the game has. Combat Command Ships - a BS can do exactly the same job cheaper, with more DPS and more tank. Only sacrificing agility. Some will say "lol but CCSs can kill smaller/faster ships that a BS cant". Well actually this isnt particularly true (CCS is too slow to catch said ships) and besides, although heresy to suggest its quite possible to fit a BS with some smaller weapons to kill frigs with and STILL have enough large ones to keep the DPS far higher than the CCS. Fix the CCSs somehow, dont know how. Lall - THE Vocal Minority - Reikoku
Darnoth El'lyan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 13:23:00 - [487] 1) Missiles are horrible for pvp. If you fix nothing else, fix this. 2) Pos logistics. Every part of it is horrible. Every part of it. 3) Ewar other than ecm. They're all mostly useless. ECM wouldn't be used as much if the other ewar were useful and served a purpose that ecm can't.
Caol Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.19 13:41:00 - [488] 1. Add an aggression timer to player interactions with npcs. If you log off when ratting you run the risk of being scanned down and killed. 2. Remove local from 0.0 and introduce a special "concord local scan monitor pos module". At sov 3 you are able to anchor a module that enables local to all in the system, this can be disabled in the usual manner and is placed outside of pos fields. 3. ECCM. Fix jammers and ECCM once and for all. How? Give ECCM 2 functions 1) it gives a bonus to sensor strength as now 2) it can be overheated. The effect of overheating is to instantly break a jam and allow you to target again (you should only be able to overheat 3-4 times with thermodynamics IV say). People sacrifice a mid to give themselves some protect from jammers. Introduce sensor strength rigs, build cost ~ 5ish mil.
Nyxus Amarr Fat J Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.19 14:23:00 - [489] Problem: Omni Tanking Not so much for shield tankers as they have multiple midslot mods competing for slots (and are active) but more so for passive armor tanking omni hardeners. It used to be to armor tank you had to make strong concessions on hardening choices, or you couldn't harden every single resist. This created variety in setups and made choices difficult for fitting as you had to consider what ships you would be fighting. Now, 2x energized adaptive nanos and a damage control gets you BETTER resists for LESS FITTING and FEWER SLOTS than active hardeners. This has lead to uniform setups for armor tankers, which is boring gameplay. In addition certain races, Minmatar primarily, have traditionally slightly lower overall DPS but the ability to vary damage types to maximize damage potential. When everyone has the same resists it results in an overall nerf to minnie damage. Solution: Make active tanking easier to fit than Omni This will provide variation in armor tanking setups and help missile/minnie dps. Then go back and take a look at minnie ammos. EMP is currently crap because it is split between EM and EXP and is optimized on neither shields nor armor. Make it EM/Therm, or EM/Kin or straight EM so it's useful. Problem: Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships need more fitting and slots There are a tremendous number of ships in Eve. Unfortunately we don't see many of them because they simply don't have the fitting or the slots to be useful, this is very prevalent in the lower tiers of Tech 1 ships. If you look at Tier 2 battlecruisers they are great. If you look at Tier 1 battlecruisers they are.....pretty terrible simply because they don't have the fitting to compete. This is the same situation if you look at Tier 1 cruisers. Tier 3 for the most part are pretty decent, while the Tier 1 and Tier 2 are never used because they lack slots and fitting. A boost of this sort won't overpower them, but it will make them an acceptable choice. I think everyone would like to see more and different ships flying in Eve. Solution: Revisit lower tier ships to make them usful. Brutix, prophecy, Omen, Celestis, Bellicose, and Stabber could all use a bit more fitting and maybe a slot if it was balanced. Faction ships and destroyers desperately need this too. Maybe a peek at the Assault Ships and fix the shield/armor mix on the phoon while you are at it. Problem: Recons are a bit unbalanced. The Arazu and the Lachesis have horrible, horrible, horrible capacitor problems. All of the Force Recons need more fitting if they are intended to fight at close range. Currently they all tank like paper bags because they just don't have the fitting to do much besides throw on their racial ewar. To fight at close range effectively (and cloakers should be fighting at close range) they need a bit more fitting so they don't instantly vaporize. Arazu and Pilgrim are the worst problems, with the Rapier and Falcon not far behind. Giving them the grid/cpu to fit a decent tank, mid sized weapons and ewar won't overpower them as they are close range and lack slots to tank or do damage extremely well even with a massive boost in fitting. Damps need more effectiveness on Gallente recons, both range and damping power. These ships should be specialized in combating snipers and they can't reach the ranges necessary. Ditto for the Curse on Tracking Disruptor range. The Pilgrim NEEDS range on nos/neuts (Ashimmu too please) so it can operate on at greater than 10km ranges. The Rapier/Huginn need a web effectiveness bonus and something to TPs to make them more desirable. A secondary effect (like making ships less agile) or increasing the TP bonus on these ships larger to make TP effects more noticeable. I can fly all these ships and have been really impressed with the changes and communications so far. Thanks! Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Pascal Almaric	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:10:00 - [490] Reduce the interval between clone jumps for the purpose of implant swapping. If I could jump out of my 100M Isk Empire clone into a couple of +2s for an hour when a player/agent said "fancy a lowsec trip", I might put my carebear ass on the line a bit more. I think this might do more to encourage "casual PvP" than the entire edifice of Faction War. [If there's a problem with somebody exploiting JCs for strategic mobility, make the hours before the next jump 1 + (n * distance), i.e. 1 hour if it's used for switching implants in one place but lots for travelling from Fountain to Delve.] Make local delayed in lowsec and 0.0. Give the directional scanner an autorepeat function to replace clicking every 5 seconds, plus good configurable filters on results (e.g. player ships + probes), plus the ability to aim at a bookmark (e.g. the gate to the plex I just entered), plus the option to flash/beep whenever certain filters detect new items. It needs to reward player skill and diligence without becoming a chore. The learning curve in EVE is infamous. Write a proper manual.

steveid Killed In Action The Firm.	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:11:00 - [491] The only thing that I would like to see fixed is the homogenizing of the races and ships. Ship classes are TOO balanced imo, I think its reasonable that one race may have a ship type that's good and a ship type that sucks, its the race itself that should be balanced and not the ship class.
JBX Sparky Caldari ThunderStar Inc	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:11:00 - [492] 1. alchemy i feel needs improved mabee by allowing it to get 100% refine at a pos or by rebalancing the amount of the refine 2. Sovereignty i feel needs to be fixed and refocused away from pos warfare into somethin smaller alliances can compete with, tho i am not sure how this is possable as more numbers seems to always win 3. Titans i think need to be redirected to a new role mabee as mobile stations or somethin more usefull then a big smartbomb
Zzulu X Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:17:00 - [493] Yeah, minmatar BS/Projectile guns and capitals + Missiles in PVP! Seems to be huge issues right now, affecting a large amount of people.
Hawkiee	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:46:00 - [494] one thing i feel should be looked at is the rule of engagment with ninja salvagers during missions, the belt salvaging being open is more then fair, but in a mission this rule should be revisited. i feel since it's a mission assinged to you, the loot and the salvage should be under the same rule. 2.level 5 skill time, these r just crazy. 3.Maybe next time CCP changes a role of a ship. they can grandfather inn the old role till these ships r killed off, ( SB)
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 16:15:00 - [495] 1) POS logistics - every single part is terrible. Setting up a decent sovereignty-claiming armed large POS can take up to half a dozen hours of tedious make-work...and then they have to be fueled with various different items in the correct ratios. "Fuel crates" (which was on the agenda a while back, iirc) and automated pre-set deployment would be nice - if timing is an issue, then make the set-up one button press that takes the same amount of time to complete as the current very manual process. 2) ECM...or, more accurately, the worthlessness of the other three types of electronic warfare compared to ECM. NB: This does not mean 'nerf ECM' - it means 'bring the rest up to speed'. 3) Small Amarr T1 ships - our frigates suck, our cruisers suck. Fix them, please.
Jihn Anolar	Posted - 2009.04.19 16:17:00 - [496] Tempest. Artillery. Lack of focus in Minmatar. ie: Do you want us to shield tank or armor tank? Projectiles or missiles? Make up your damn mind. I understand that people will say that this is an advantage, but it's really not for a new player like myself.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2009.04.19 16:20:00 - [497] Sovereignty - Comes down to who owns the most dreads, not who actually occupies the space. POS warfare is no different than ice mining. Invention - needs a much higher chance of success. The moon mining scandal changed things to where if you do not have a T2 BPO you can not make money off of T2. If the bean counter implants still do not work, look at fixing them also. Moon mining - It is so static, if you were not playing Eve 3+ years ago, look elsewhere for making ISK. It currently only feeds the super wealthy alliances more wealth.
Imhothar Xarodit Minmatar Wolverine Solutions Dead Mans Hand	Posted - 2009.04.19 16:51:00 - [498] 1. NPC loot Ratting and missioning loot is screwing over the mining industry. It is more efficient to go ratting or missioning and reprocess the loot. the basic T1 items should be completely removed from loot tables as they can be built from BPs. Named items should have their reprocessing yields reduced greatly. The worth of a named item should come from its attributes, not form its reprocessinf yield. 2. Naglfar there are many threads about the Naglfar already. It should at least be made a focused projectile dreadnought. It is the only dread requiring deep gunenry and missile skills, making the training time to effectively use it higher than the others. 3. Mining yield With #1 taken into consideration refining yields from low and medium ores require a great boost. It is currently impossible to sustain a 0.0 industry with locally mined minerals. With mining becoming the number one mineral supplier this should be possible and 0.0 industry should require miners who mine all kinds of ores locally, from Veldspar to Mercoxit, and should not rely on the extreme logistics overload to bring minerals to 0.0 from empire.
Illayne Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 16:56:00 - [499] 1. POS warfare needs to be more exciting, this crap with hundreds of players hiding behind a forcefield is just stupid and lame, and one of the bigger causes as to why people burn out from boredom.
Mak'dora Adesh Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:07:00 - [500] 1. Passive vs active tanking, espec in PvP. 2. Relative strength of weapon systems. 3. Lack of dev communication as to why they might consider something 'balanced', when a large proportion of the community believes otherwise.

Nooto Caldari Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:40:00 - [501] 1. Motherships. Give them a Valid role not to just be Expensive Carriers. Their current abilitys arent useful enough (lol at the ECM Burst range for example) to justyfie the costs 2. Drones. give us the ability to reconnect to lost drones like u gave to us @ scanning probes. sucks to loose millions of isk cause of a ctd or connection issues. 3. Blastes. un nerf them. BEWARE!!! All text above this sig represents my personal opinion. This in no way reflects the views of my corporation or alliance
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:52:00 - [502] Missiles: REMOVE ALL MISSILE DAMAGE BONUSES. - Make all missiles do a flat, increased, damage that would reflect the lvl5 bonused damage of a missile boat. What happens: missile boats still do roughly the same damage, and non-missile boats that are stuck with a couple missile slots (megathron, hurricane, etc) have a 'bonused' highslot that they now have the option of putting more damage in, as opposed to just a utility slot that's labeled a missile slot. ----------------- Friends Forever
Perramas Caldari Pan Caldarian Ventures	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:58:00 - [503] 1. Shield tanking needs work compared to armor tanking, it is easier to make a cap stable armor tank vs a shield tank. Shield tanking mods are in the mid slots where you have to fit tank,ewar, tackling, and speed boosting. Armor tanking fits lows were you only have to worry about tank, DPS and if you have low skills cap mods. 2. Rockets/missiles need work. Missiles are weak in PvP and too powerful in PvE compared to other weapon systems. Rockets are a joke. 3. Moon mining makes way too much ISK for far too few people. ----------------- ôItÆs too late to work within the system, and too soon to shoot the bastards.ö
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:00:00 - [504] Just something I've noticed, but all these 'boost minnie' 'boost Naglfar' posters have no corp and no alliance. Me thinks they're all alts created by a couple players to inflate the requests. Not that I dont agree, but just pointing it out to the Devs. ----------------- Friends Forever
Gaia Jane Amarr	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:01:00 - [505] 1. Holy ** minmatar sucks. 2. Minmatar REALLY **ing sucks. 3. Fix jump mechanics in lag, thx.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:01:00 - [506] Originally by: Franga Originally by: ArmyOfMe 1. Minmatar large wepapons, both types 2. minmatar battleships. (plenty of issues there) 3. give us back the much feared alpha strike from artys. make our long range ships feared again lol - I remember the forums when 5 tempests could insta-pop most other BS. You want that back? yes
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:06:00 - [507] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Me thinks they're all alts created by a couple players to inflate the requests. Not that I dont agree, but just pointing it out to the Devs. Its relatively easy to assign each poster to their given account I think. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Aya Vandenovich	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:20:00 - [508] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Me thinks they're all alts created by a couple players to inflate the requests. Not that I dont agree, but just pointing it out to the Devs. Its relatively easy to assign each poster to their given account I think. They already caught one person out for supporting his own arguments in one of the 1.1 patch threads (bombers, I think), so I'd imagine they aren't going to miss all the alts in this thred. Somewhere In England
Galler FLAke Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:28:00 - [509] 1) Minmatar battleships and dreads are way underpowered in fleets right now. ---Large Projectile Turrets need to be be brought inline with lasers/rails. They need a dramatic boost to optimal range and a small boost to tracking. ---The Naglfar needs to be the large projectile version of the Rev or Moros. The naglfar's split dps bonus really hurts it, especially when it's using the two worst sources of damage. 2) Missiles need a small boost. ---In fleet fights an apoc or rohk will have hit the target 5 times before the first volley from a raven/cerb/drake/nighthawk reaches the same target. This really limits missile users ability to be useful in fleets. ---(Precision) missiles need to be buffed so that they can actually hit small fast ships. As is missiles are useless on small fast ships (even in the missiles same 'class') and T2 precisions are just completely useless. ---Capital ship missiles: There should also be two types of capital ship missiles to make the Phoenix more useful. Make citadel torps similar to rockets/HAMs/torps. They should be short range but high damage. Introduce citadel cruise missiles that have the range of the current citadel torps except dramatically increase their velocity and make them do a bit less damage to compensate. 3) Balance risk vs reward of high sec, low sec, and 0.0. ---As is l4 mission runners in empire make nearly as much as ratters/mission runners in 0.0 but they don't have any of the 0.0 drawbacks. 0.0 ratters only start to make more isk after spending several hours grooming the belts or if they get really lucky and get a faction spawn (and then get really lucky and get useful loot from it). Boost the bounties of rats in low sec and 0.0 by 5-10% and make frigate and cruiser spawns less likely. ---Also look into the distribution of ore in high sec, low sec and 0.0 to make mining more worthwhile and necessary in dangerous space.
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:32:00 - [510] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Just something I've noticed, but all these 'boost minnie' 'boost Naglfar' posters have no corp and no alliance. Me thinks they're all alts created by a couple players to inflate the requests. Not that I dont agree, but just pointing it out to the Devs. Looking back at it, Boost Naglfar has almost always come from goons (????), the boost minnies/projectiles not so much. However, to address the other concern: Let's (conservatively) say 70% of the 500 posts are saying projectiles are bad. That means there's 350 posters with range the range of accounts being [117, 350). So lets assume the lower end of only 117 individual accounts. There's only 150 other posts in the whole thread.... so unless you think that there's a huge conspiracy to stop people from posting about any other subject, I'd say your post is at best incorrect, and worst a deliberate attempt to manipulate this thread. Why? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org

Ravcharas	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:45:00 - [511] Doesn't matter. It's not as if CCP are going to say 'Well, we were going to look into fixing this thing, but it got outvoted by 8% in this one thread so we put it on the back burner and got on with this other thing." I'm pretty sure after six years CCP have learned enough not to get trolled by their userbase.
Trucker Mike	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:56:00 - [512] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. Why is this so hard to understand for some people?
Arutema	Posted - 2009.04.19 19:19:00 - [513] 1: AFs: Need their 4th bonus. Possibly drop the Ishkur's railgun range bonus for a drone HP bonus. 2: Veldspar Shortage: Add some easy-to-find Veldspar exploration sites. 3: Falloff: Blasters and all projectiles use falloff rather than optimal for range. There are lots of easy ways to increase optimal, not so for falloff.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.19 19:28:00 - [514] Originally by: Arutema 1: AFs: Need their 4th bonus. Possibly drop the Ishkur's railgun range bonus for a drone HP bonus. 2: Veldspar Shortage: Add some easy-to-find Veldspar exploration sites. 3: Falloff: Blasters and all projectiles use falloff rather than optimal for range. There are lots of easy ways to increase optimal, not so for falloff. Where in heaven's name is there a veldspar shortage? In hisec alone, I pass droves of the damn things. If there's a shortage where you are, it might behoove you to look around a bit. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Martin Unsmith GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:17:00 - [515] Edited by: Martin Unsmith on 19/04/2009 20:18:13 1: Artillery badly needs a boost 2: Titans, and DDs in particular, are still a bad idea and screw up fleet combat 3: Most Tech 2 short-range ammo is virtually worthless due to the serious drawbacks
Lady Lard GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:20:00 - [516] 1. The Titan Doomsday weapon is overpowered. 2. The reward vs risk ratio for Empire vs 0.0 space is skewed heavily in favour of Empire. There is no reason for the average player to go to 0.0 space. 3. The Naglafar ship is worse compared to all other dreadnoughts.
PierTa	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:24:00 - [517] Originally by: N'olive Edited by: N''olive on 19/04/2009 08:06:51 1 : Artilleries 2 : Minmatars caps and BS (apart typhoon, the phoon is fine). 3 : T2 ammos total agree
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:51:00 - [518] Edited by: Nian Banks on 19/04/2009 20:52:44 1: Projectile weapons, Artillery and Autocannons, both have limitations that are unacceptable, their uniqueness been no cap use and a large falloff aren't great benefits. Falloff is largely unbuffable with modules, ammunition is lacking uniqueness. A need for T1 ammunition with a falloff bonus. Perhaps having an option in the projectile weapons that removes the need to reload except to change ammunition types you could perhaps use the heat mechanic on the weapons, slowly increasing the heat to the projectile weapon. 2: Battlecruisers, Command Ships. With the new popularity of energy neutralisers on battleships, the Battlecruiser sized ships now perform poorly v's battleships because any active tanking or mwd function is disable early in a fight. If perhaps battlecruisers and command ships were given battleship sized capacitors, the fight would be more interesting and command ships could stay in the fight and not function as an alt ship in a safe spot. 3: Destroyers, The Destroyer class is lacking, although the current tier1 destroyers are fine frigate snipers, there needs to be more destroyers, tier2. Perhaps a tank destroyer, using each relevant racial tank bonus and based on the tier1 battlecruiser and tier3 battleship layout and design principles. With that there would be a small, medium and large ship type with a natural progression. Destroyer > Battlecruiser > Battleship.
Cpt Tofutiger	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:57:00 - [519] because i already posted my top 3 but i have so much more to add heres a list of stuff i can think off that could use a second look in no particular order Rockets lol rockets ... they are just all arround useless especialy bonused ships... wich perform better with guns ... Artillery Fell behind with all the nerfs and buffs ... could use more alpha and a light toutch more dps Blasters visit one of bellums whine threads T2 Shortrange ammo in 99% of cases your better off with faction ammo (t2 ammo needs a buff not faction ammo needs a nerf!!) Missile nerf was a bit harsh Remote sensor damps/Tracking disruptors especialy on bonused ships could use a nudge to the more powerfull Target Painters Need to be more usefull... the one ewar type where it wouldnt horribly imbalance things if it where to get greater optimal range Pilgrim lol comon... is just god awful Rapier/Huggin where badly hit by web nerf i wouldnt mind if they get like 80% strength and i dont even fly them Arazu/Lachesis see rsd (Pirate) Faction ships are in dire need of loving personaly id love it if they where like t2.1 versions in their original role biggest ouchie would be the Bloodraider ships Black ops still poo, if you dont want to give them more power give them something funny like idk 20km ecm burst module or 20km tracking field enhancer for friendlys and disrupting for enemies (scriptable) make it something very unique POS God just do something about poses especialy the placing of stuff there is this awesome topic too ... Motherships Feels like a carrier 1.4 ..make it a carrier 1.8 Certain Officer Modules have the exact same stats of X-Type modules, a little nudge even would make them something more special Titan so many things wrong but at least increase the range of the bridge so not so much bumpage eh
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:57:00 - [520] 1. Missiles. With QR, missiles in PVP has been over-nerfed, as their explosion velocity are now too low to be able to do the maximum damage on all ships of the same size. All explosion velocities must be boosted by 25% to cover nearly all sub-warp speeds. This change is the best thing to correct a few the missile damage, and keep the tank capacity given by Afterburners. 2. Shields. Indeed, today, shield is bad considered by pvp players. No buffer, heavy cap usage, etc... They also have a high cost in Ewar capacities of Caldari players. All races can be fleet oriented and solo oriented, but NOT Caldari who are only fleet oriented (except few ships). It is also difficult to find remote shield or others, since everyone use armor tank. Shields must be partially rethinked, or at least, some counter-measures must be created to avoid some of the problems of this tanking (like a high-slot disruptor, but with serious counter-parts (limited range or something) to not make Caldari players overpowered). At least, base explosion shield resist must be boosted by 2.5 points, as in Empyrean Age, shield has been nerfed by 8.3% while armor has been nerfed by 7.1%, this by reducing one of their resists by 10 points (explosion for shield, EM for armor). To be really equilibrated, the explosion resist of shield would be reduced by 7.5 points, not by 10, to keep the same ratio than armor. It would be too long to explain everything, I just hope than CCP can correct a few the shield problem. 3. Blasters. With QR, missiles, but also blasters tracking, has been over-nerfed. Blasters are less used today... If CCP correct missiles like I said in point #1, blasters must be corrected to keep balance. Blaster tracking must be boosted.

Havus Mauth Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 22:05:00 - [521] l4 missions have off the chart reward:risk ratios, and thats bunk. this really makes nullsec quite worthless, and there desperately needs to be incentivization for individual players in 0.0. particularly now that there are BS spawns in lowsec, theres nearly no callings left besides ABC mining in nullsec. everywhere else in eve received continual boosts, except nullsec, which has remained the same across the past 2-3 years. AF's need a role and a 4th ability. i'll leave it at two.
Maverus Penthark GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.19 22:28:00 - [522] 1. Missiles. Missiles got hit pretty hard in the speed nerf, and need a bit of a boost from where they are now. 2. Large Projectiles. 3. Naglfars. Make these better so our dread fleets can have an increased verticality quotient
Ghost Hunter Naqam	Posted - 2009.04.19 23:58:00 - [523] 1. Black Ops 2. T2 Ammo 3. The Standings System ______ The Seven Events of the Apocalypse The fourth event is described by Macaper as ôthe appetite of nothing expands over the worldö;
Onizuka GTO	Posted - 2009.04.20 00:15:00 - [524] 1.Missiles 2.Stealth Bombers 3.Bomb Launching
Satori Komeiji Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.20 00:50:00 - [525] 1) The User Interface. EVE's UI is honestly very poorly designed in most aspects. If World of Warcraft has a single thing over EVE it's the fact that while the default UI is not that great, the developers give the players virtually full control over it. The user has so many UI options available to them that even new players can get the UI to display all the game's information in a clear and concise manner with little effort. Many frustrations with the EVE's "gameplay" that cause new players to quit are actually from the UI from my experience. Give the community an XML UI and the problem will be fixed within 24 hours. 2 & 3) dunno, I'll think of something!
Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 02:39:00 - [526] Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 20/04/2009 02:41:24 Fix Missiles Nerf really hurt. Fix Shields RR Shield really is bad, and midslot layout is overly harsh. Fix Bomb Aiming Mechanic Ever tried to aim a bomb in a laggy area ? Even a slight bit of lag ? Doesn't work too well. Wanna make me happy. Add a button that says something like "Fire the bomb based on where current ship I have selected(not targeted) will be in 15 seconds using its current trajectory." People can still shoot the bomb down, or change trajectory or whatever. But a couple of seconds of lag can cause a very different area of impact than you lined up for.
Snake O'Donell Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.04.20 03:07:00 - [527] 1. T2 ammo. Void and Javelin are complete crap. 2. Blasters. Medium blasters are next to useless, it takes to long to get into range. 3. Level 4 missions: They just suck.
Rogerano Minmatar Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.04.20 03:10:00 - [528] -- Electronic Warfare: Dramatically re-engineer all forms of ewar. The current mechanisms are simplistic, binary, and un-fun. It can be done; just like the scanner re-engineering effort. Bite the fscking bullet already. -- Artillery clip size. Double or triple gun capacity. This will effectively increase DPS and improve usability of the weapons. -- Minmatar split weapons, bonus, mid / low slot system. This philosophy is the root cause of any and all Minmatar ship balance issues. The continuance of such a system is highly questionable in the context of today's EVE. --- Not happy with something in EVE? An emo whine will doubtless help your cause.
Kristaara Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.20 04:56:00 - [529] 1) Risk vs Reward in high sec is off. Rather than simply nerfing it... let corporations/alliances upgrade stations to add mission npcs to them as has been mentioned a few times elsewhere. Missions in 0.0 should be noticeably better than high sec. probably increase isk sinks a bit to compensate.. 2) T2 ammo 3) current sov system and if I'm allowed to have 4... 4) Insurance. Blah, make it go away. People will be less tempted to cheap fit their battleships. Its also an isk fountain that doesn't need to be there.
Yon Krum The Knights Templar Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.04.20 05:12:00 - [530] Only 3? Very well, I'll be general... 1) 0.0 mechanics -- including risk vs reward in comparison with highsec missions, POS rewards and warfare (including cap warfare and titans), truesec and moon distributions, etc. 2) Manufacturing materials -- accessability/availability of basic minerals in required quantities, mission loot vs mining mineral feeds, moon materials requirements weighted so heavily toward R64/prom/dyspro (and then moons distributed in wonky ways). 3) Ewar -- relationship in effectiveness/usefulness of various ewar types, drones, and ranges. Nozh, we can do this all year. Why not open a series of new discussion threads on as many topics as you can handle, and gather specific input on those? --Krum --Krum

ShadowGod56	Posted - 2009.04.20 05:32:00 - [531] 1) fix the missiles, they suck 2) the t2 damage ammo sucks, lessen the penalties 3) assault frigs need that 4th bonus
Woulvesbaine	Posted - 2009.04.20 05:57:00 - [532] 1. Projectiles could use a bump - especially arties. 2. Blaster boats maybe could get an increase in speed so they could get in range. Or slight boost to blaster optimals. I like the former better because it preserves the in-your-face aspect of Gallente DPS. 3. Minmatar recons - they really got double nerfed - maybe worse. Speed was minnie's saving grace and nano is gone. Webs got totally nerfed. AND the *&^%$% stupid missing weapon bonus inherent in minmatar split weapons.
OrangeAfroMan Minmatar Corp 1 Allstars PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.20 06:13:00 - [533] 1. Projectiles 2. 0.0 Mechanics - something needs to be done to make POSes more vulnerable to <100 man battleship fleets. In particular if Moon Harvesters and Silos were put outside pos shields it would force people to defend their space rather than just sit in an Outpost in their cynojammed system. ---------
KillerFerrett	Posted - 2009.04.20 07:09:00 - [534] 1. I don't have a magic wand to cast spells on the reds. 2. I don't have my cap that makes me have uber powa. 3. I have to buy new mods when I die, they should just respawn in my hanger. ---------------------------------------------------------- Give the RAVEN/PHOON the torp range of the Bombers now. Fix t2 ammo so it does MOAR damage than faction ammo. Oh, and can you make jump gates destructable?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.20 07:11:00 - [535] 1) Ewar drones -- Not my most important, but felt was critical to respond to the unwarranted ecm drone hate. ECM drones are fine: its a hard decision whether to bring them or damage drones. Thats a GOOD thing, it means the two are balanced. The other ewar drones aren't even worth considering bringing, they are terrible. ECM drones don't need to be touched, but, the other ewar drones need to be brought up to snuff with ecm/damage drones. (nerfing down damage/ecm to other drones would wreck Gallente, so thats not really a viable alternative option). 2) Caldari gun boats -- Missiles are poorly balanced for pvp, just take one look at this thread. Frankly, I don't think balancing missiles against guns for both pvp and pve, and keeping up with that balance patch by patch, is really possible without an insane amount of effort. The alternative? Buff caldari gunboats. Yes, some of them are very good (rohk, for example), but on the whole they are not good enough as a group to be worth training unless you just happen to be crossing gallente. Especially considering they need a whole new support skill library for the pure caldari player. Make them worth training so that now that ecm is nerfbatted training out doesn't become mandatory for large distance and/or gang caldari pvp. 3) t3 pricing -- You think it will go down, I know, I know. If it doesn't in a reasonable time period, consider less direct-sell-to-npc-for-isk drops and replace them with t3-making drops -- especially making sure to widen production bottlenecks (but making sure not to reduce isk/hour total value of loot from killing sleepers) . This fights inflationary pressure (again, controversial whether it is going on but if it is very, very bad thing), and will bring hull + full subsystem set prices below 500mil isk where the ship will be usable by the masses and not just a toy for players who sell timecodes or have huge amounts of income.
Nikuno	Posted - 2009.04.20 09:29:00 - [536] 1. sensor dampners on specialised ships are too weak 2. blasters on battleships (and on cruisers/battlecruisers to a smaller extent) are too ineffective since the web changes (which I much prefer to the stornger webs of old as they brought variety back to flying small ships) 3. hyperion needs extra powergrid
Randgris The Bastards	Posted - 2009.04.20 09:40:00 - [537] 1. remote sensor damp ship bonuses: could use higher damp bonus and/or range/falloff bonus 2. oneiros/scimitar tracking link bonus could use a buff or another bonus. all logistics could use a HP buffer boost to prevent getting alpha'd by larger fleets 3. blaster tracking/range/damage ------------------------------------------ Yes I know how my face looks like :D
Xello Black	Posted - 2009.04.20 09:41:00 - [538] 1. Minmatar Ship looks Dont get me wrong, i love beeing Minmatar but the Ships just look as crap - even with the kind of "ships build from a rebel/slave race" theme - they could look much more better and not like this. Just think about the first Minmatar Titan (Leviathan 1)- fcking flying junkyard. 1.1 Just increase the size of the Typhoon* - damn awesome ship but with its size it feels like flying an BC 2. I support the Idea of "Ryusoath Orillian" Quote: personally i think (massively) increasing the spawn rate of cosmic anomalies would be a great idea, they are like little missions but you find them your self and promote players moving around more, and could tempt more players to lowsec. This would make empire living much more greater instead of an simple l4 mission griefing the whole f*ckig day. It kinda sucks to only gain money from l4 mission in empire. Just let people do their own thing and not do 2bajillion missions for some npc corps/agents. Make the option for some freelancer. 3. Mineral gaining I think it sucks that i can way more minerals in 0.0 from haulerspawns then with my hulk =/
Rail Gun Caldari Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2009.04.20 09:43:00 - [539] 1. Faction ships... Sansha and most Battle Ships are OK, rest are worthles piece of... 2. Remote repairing should cause aggrotimer so they cant repair their friends in stations and dock immediately when deaggressed friends dock or things seem to turn bad. Docking games atm are just lame. Aggrotimers should also be littlebit longer. 3. Missiles should be revised again... last nerf was too harsh
Arianna Maria	Posted - 2009.04.20 09:54:00 - [540] Edited by: Arianna Maria on 20/04/2009 10:06:02 1. Scale down lvl 4 mission rewards/bounties/salvage 2. Blasters and Blaster boats 3. RSD/Arazu/Lachesis

ry ry	Posted - 2009.04.20 10:41:00 - [541] Edited by: ry ry on 20/04/2009 10:41:29 Originally by: Lachesis VII Lets see here: 1) Rockets. Current rocket situation makes those ships that focus exclusively on rockets (Malediction, Vengeance, etc) seriously underpowered, and those ships that use them as a secondary weapons system (Tristan, etc) also lack power. I'd suggest a change to rockets whereby they have a small clip size and a very high rate of fire. They could deal significant DPS, but only for a short period of time before needing to reload (10-15 seconds). This mimics real-world rocket launchers. Concrete example would be to take your normal rocket launcher II. Reduce the clip size to 20 rockets, but quarter the firing time (to about 0.6 seconds). A max skilled Vengeance will now be capable of doing 320 DPS.... for 10 seconds, after which time it does 0 DPS for 10+ seconds while it reloads. Real DPS is close to 160, which is about right for a tanky AF I think. Smart players could ripple fire their launchers to keep steady DPS on a large target, or overload all 4 launchers at once to rapidly pop a small one. this is the best solution to the rocket problem i've read yet. would also make them a fun weapons on interceptors. claws would have a little more oomph, crows would have the option to get close and do dps rather than the boring tictacs they generally seem to use, taranis' uber dps wouldn't be so far ahead of the other inties anymore.
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:12:00 - [542] Originally by: ry ry Edited by: ry ry on 20/04/2009 10:59:07 Originally by: Lachesis VII Lets see here: 1) Rockets. Current rocket situation makes those ships that focus exclusively on rockets (Malediction, Vengeance, etc) seriously underpowered, and those ships that use them as a secondary weapons system (Tristan, etc) also lack power. I'd suggest a change to rockets whereby they have a small clip size and a very high rate of fire. They could deal significant DPS, but only for a short period of time before needing to reload (10-15 seconds). This mimics real-world rocket launchers. Concrete example would be to take your normal rocket launcher II. Reduce the clip size to 20 rockets, but quarter the firing time (to about 0.6 seconds). A max skilled Vengeance will now be capable of doing 320 DPS.... for 10 seconds, after which time it does 0 DPS for 10+ seconds while it reloads. Real DPS is close to 160, which is about right for a tanky AF I think. Smart players could ripple fire their launchers to keep steady DPS on a large target, or overload all 4 launchers at once to rapidly pop a small one. this is the best solution to the rocket problem i've read yet. would also make them a fun weapons on interceptors. claws would have a little more oomph, crows would have the option to get close and do dps rather than the boring tictacs they generally seem to use, taranis' uber dps wouldn't be so far ahead of the other inties anymore. although a 320 dps vengeance would be ridiculous, obviously. a max-skilled claw with some kind of pitiful tank won't break 120 dps. Well this topic was not for discussion but ill explain why ROF will not work: server gets all fubar when actions (like firing) takes less than 1 second. Thats why CCP nerfed probe launch timer to 1,5second - otherwise server went ape****. Also as server does some weird "1 second ticks" for calculations anything under could possibly be increased back to 1 second. So best way is boost damage, reduce capacity (maybe even greater reduction). Same result (short burst of DPS, long reload) but easier on server.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:15:00 - [543] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/04/2009 11:17:05 1) weapon balance issues: rockets are abysmally bad, blasters and artillery need some help, and pulse lasers are a bit too good 2) Remote sensor damps are too weak on dedicated damper ships (Arazu, Lach) due to nerfed damp strengths and stacking penalty. Some boost needed, maybe on ship bonus. 3) Some faction ships are totally sub-par (Ashimmu and Gila leading the "suck" pack). The same kind of (excellent!) rethink as was done with Phantasm/Nightmare would be in order for the other faction ships, too, they haven't been touched since forever while module effects and fittings have changed over the years. In some cases, they just need more grid and/or cpu, in others their bonuses no longer make all that much sense. I would also list "Black Ops need fuel bay!" there, but I understand that's already in the works.
CrestoftheStars Caldari Eternum Pariah	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:18:00 - [544] Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 20/04/2009 11:18:59 Originally by: PierTa Originally by: N'olive Edited by: N''olive on 19/04/2009 08:06:51 1 : Artilleries 2 : Minmatars caps and BS (apart typhoon, the phoon is fine). 3 : T2 ammos total agree agreed. addad the caldary citadel torps need a look. the super capital ships in general are quite game destroying sense they break the rule of eve: anything badly fitted and without the proper skill will be destroyid by something much smaller and well skilled. the same with siege modules or triangue modules (solution, totally overhull super caps and their use. remove any siege mods and give them something else to balance them while still not giving a 1bill ship the possibillity to perma tank 20 bs's (3bill+ of smaller ships and 20 times more pilots). rockets, light,heavy,and cruise missiles (are not hitting their intended target effectively, 1 ab drastically reduce the dmg while giving a lot of other advantages, nothing like this against turrets, would be balanced.). SB's (dmg is way too low for their intended roles). lvl 5 missions (the insane amount of neuts suddenly introduced. remove these or at least let only 2 towers instead of 6 in the same spot + disallowing cap ships in lvl 5, since capital ships are so overpowered compared to any other ship, unless the other proposal is done firs and their siege modules are removed, then they would be fine). T2 ammo, need a big boost. HP buff (the double hp long time ago), need to be removed to balance the buffer tank compared to the active tanks. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
CrestoftheStars Caldari Eternum Pariah	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:27:00 - [545] Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/04/2009 21:05:20 1. Missiles. With QR, missiles in PVP has been over-nerfed, as their explosion velocity are now too low to be able to do the maximum damage on all ships of the same size. I don't know how correct it really. So one idea, maybe not the best one, could be that all explosion velocities must be boosted by 25% to cover a few more ships correctly at sub-warp speed. This change can permit to keep the tank capacity given by Afterburners. In few words, missiles must be a few less nerfed. 2. Shields. Indeed, today, shield is bad considered by pvp players. No buffer, heavy cap usage, etc... They also have a high cost in Ewar capacities of Caldari players. All races can be fleet oriented and solo oriented, but NOT Caldari who are only fleet oriented (except few ships). It is also difficult to find remote shield or others, since everyone use armor tank. Shields must be partially rethinked, or at least, some counter-measures must be created to avoid some of the problems of this tanking (like a high-slot disruptor, but with serious counter-parts (limited range or something) to not make Caldari players overpowered), and so make shield more attracting. Also, base explosion shield resist must be boosted by 2.5 points, as in Empyrean Age, shield has been nerfed by 8.3% while armor has been nerfed by 7.1%, this by reducing one of their resists by 10 points (explosion for shield, EM for armor). To be really equilibrated, the explosion resist of shield would be reduced by 7.5 points, not by 10, to keep the same ratio than armor. Etc... It would be too long to explain everything about shields. I just hope than CCP can correct a few the shield problems. 3. Blasters. With QR, missiles, but also blasters tracking, has been over-nerfed. Blasters are less used today... If CCP correct missiles like I said in point #1, blasters must be corrected to keep balance. Blaster tracking must be boosted. missile, would be overpowered, what they need to do is redo the formula so it is signature that is the main giver, would fix it all when tweaked ^^ shields, just remove the old HP buff so that shield is a valibel option since active shields boost much more as a active tank then a armor tank, problem is with the double hp active tanks are insanely bad in pvp compared to buffer tanks. blasters, needs higher dps, lower range, same tracking (making them the "if i catch you with the 2 webs and the scrambler, you are WTFPOWNAGED, so don't get cought", right now the max dps on a blasterthron is 1,4k and distance 7-10 km. would like this too change too 1,8k dps and distance 3-5km). ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.04.20 12:18:00 - [546] 1. Blasters & Range/Tracking: Blasters rarely do the legendary EFT DPS we all know and love. Once you drop below 2-1km you end up gettin 0 damage because of tracking issues. Going outside that range means you won't hit anything due to short range. Improve the range and tracking, and find out whats going on with tracking when you're right on top of your target. 2. Tech II Ammunition: Aside from Scorch and Long Range Sniper T2 ammo, it all sucks terribly. The downsides rarely outweigh the penalties, some of them are just terrible when you have multiple turrets/launchers. Improve the damage and bring the penalties down to more realistic levels. 3. Mining: It's boring as hell and as a result there are macrominers everywhere. Add some user input into this, there are dozens of ideas floating around. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Lyria Talmanes Gallente Obsidian Inc. KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 12:57:00 - [547] 1) Medium and large blasters (it was already developped at length, no use repeating the same things) 2) T2 ammos. What's the use of those? (At least for hybrids, I don't know the others) 3) Command ships (appart from the little boost that wouldn't hurt, I'd love to see a CS based on the Myrmidon hull !). Oh, and why not BS size command ships?
Badly Dazzled	Posted - 2009.04.20 13:24:00 - [548] 1. make rockets better 2. make t2 short range ammo useable 3. another bonus for AF
Onizuka GTO	Posted - 2009.04.20 13:27:00 - [549] Originally by: Lyria Talmanes Oh, and why not BS size command ships? yeah, i've wonder about that, usually the flagship of any fleet would be the biggest ship. Hence a Command Battleship not in the line up is unusual. Mind you, the Black op battleships are "kind-of" a type of Command ship, if only for Ninja fleets, but it's only a make shift one, without the command module link bonus as on command battlecrusiers....
JanSVK	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:01:00 - [550] 1, Balance low-end minerals vs high-end minerals: low end mineral prices are rising and high-end miner prices are falling. Veldspar is more valuable then every ore up to Hedgebite when counting isk/m3. Tritanium is more valuable then pyrite. Drone regions created a huge source of high-end minerals ruining the mineral market. 2, Invention, Reverse engineering, Remove the chance based calculations. Everything that affects chance right now would affect material consumption, time of the invention/reversengineering job, and resulting BPC attributes.

5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:34:00 - [551] Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 20/04/2009 14:35:01 I think artillery should have the smallest clip size and the longest firing cycles, compensated by massive alpha damage. if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature.
Mookuh Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:49:00 - [552] 1. Caldari ships more useful in fleet warfare Caldari are meant to fight in fleets, but currently, a number of factors prevent that from happening effectively, at least if you try to remote-rep. a) Introduce lower-tier versions of missile launchers. While Siege launchers do immense damage once you're in range, they're quite fitting intensive (at least on a Raven), and there is no choice to go to 'Ion' or 'Electron' Siege Launchers, except maybe if you use 'Arbalest' launchers, but that barrs using T2 ammo. The lower tier versions would have less DPS, and as there's no damage mod added to launchers, maybe the clipsizte would stay the same or even shrink a little (keep in mind though that lesser tier versions of guns usually can fire for longer durations) The range would stay the same (unless CCP introduces missile flight times/velocities affected by launchers), but there would also not be a tracking boost, evening it out again. b) Change the Slot layout on Caldari Battleships to 7 mids/4 lows. With 6/5 slots, you have to squeeze tank, propulsion, cap injector and ECCM/Tackle in the 6 midslots, but you only have damage and maybe a Damage Control to put in the lows.... well, not right now, because you have to use fitting mods, as you're stuck with the 'largest size' weapons. A good setup on a RR-BS with a 4/7 slot layout is MWD(AB)/tackle/ECCM/Cap Injector, lows with 2 plates, 2 EANMs, Damage control and 2 damage mods. With 7/4, you could fit 2 Shield Extenders, 2 Invulns, MWD(AB), Injector, Tackle/ECCM, lows with a DCU, and either 3 Damage mods or 2 damage mods and a PDS. Not unfair imho. c) Bring CalNav/DG Invulns in line with Amarr Navy/TS/DB EANMs. When the LP Store was introduced, the price of the items in there was in relation to current going prices. However, due to the DG-Invuln being such a popular carebear item, it's price was horribly bloated (kinda like Pandemonium BCUs and Arbalest Heavy launchers), leading to an enormous price for the item in the LP store... 180k LP, + 150-170 mil in ISK and tags, while an EANM costs as much as other passive Energized mods (20 Mil?). And there's BPCs abvailable in some LP stores, making them possibly even cheaper. The CalNav invuln is somewhat superior to the EANM, so nerf it. Reduce the resistance bonus to 33.75% and increase the CPU usage to the level of a normal T1, then it should be fair. d) Reduce the CPU usage of Shield Remote-reps. A T2 Large Shield Transporter takes more than 20% of the available base CPU on a Raven, while an armor remote rep takes like 3-4% of the base powergrid on most armor tankers, except maybe a Dominix (where it's 6%) 2. Bring Lasers in line with other weapon systems They can swap ammo on-the-fly, they have less cap issues on their intended ships than e.g. Railguns on a Rokh, their T1 ammo is infinite, the range on pulse lasers is much better than on other 'short range' weapons of the same class. Ever since Tracking disruptors started affecting falloff range, the last advantage ACs and Blasters had over lasers is more-or-less gone, and the fact that you can't choose your damage type isn't that much of a drawback since the Armor EM resistance nerf. Either buff the other weapons, or nerf lasers. (the only T2 guns I can use is small and medium lasers, please do not think I'm totally Caldari-biased ;) ) 3rd point is not certain yet, but I guess Muninns could be boosted while we're at it. ------------------------------------------------ Terry 'Mookuh' Hijakosji CAIN Public Relations
eliminator2 Gallente Annihilate. Shock Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:55:00 - [553] 1. Tracking (blasters mainly) 2.Low-sec (allthough its been booted there still isnt enough reason for people to go to low sec ) 3. Risk V Reward of empire and low sec (ie missions in high sec r no risk v lots of rewards, veldspar in high sec is a big isk gain so no need for going to low sec for harder to gain minerals)
Cybele Lanier Amarr The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:55:00 - [554] 1: Level 4 missions need some change. As mentioned before, I'd really like to see them revised along Sleeper lines, with fewer, smarter enemies. Perhaps make them very hard for a solo ship of any kind (except maybe Marauders), but much easier if you have a buddy along to cover a tactical role such as ECM, logistics or tackling. I'd like to see L4's become a challenge instead of a mildly dangerous no-hassle ISK source. 2: Supercapitals. Doomsdays make small groups and small ships redundant and push up the bar for 0.0 warfare (don't even think about bringing a battleship along unless it can tank 75K on every resist). But at the same time, they're so vulnerable to death by blob that Titans get used for drive-bys before safespotting and cloaking up, and motherships hardly get used for anything. IMO, both of those need another role entirely. 3: Lowsec. Right now, there just isn't that much reason to go there. Mining barges and mission ships are so vulnerable to being caught that the extra losses aren't worth a marginal profit increase from ore or missions rewards. Unlike 0.0, the system can't be locked down without bubbles and selective docking rights in stations, and you can't preemptively attack someone without sec status hits. The "viceroy" system mentioned a while back where you can pay to temporarily treat a lowsec system as "your space" sounds like a good solution. --------------- ""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence."
Cefte GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.20 15:04:00 - [555] 1. Minmatar battleships are broken. I don't fly them any more, I trained out of them literally years ago, and they're still as broken now as they were then. 2. ECM is broken. You nerfed sensor damps, tracking disruptors came pre-nerfed, target painters came pre-nerfed and then hit on the head with the stupid stick and you just nerfed ECM, again. Three out of four of the racial recons are now paperweights. If you want to create a class of ships that can't fit a tank, can't shoot worth a damn and can't do anything even slightly useful in a fleet fight, convert every ECM ship's model into a freighter and set their cargohold to 10m3. At least that way, people will know what they're getting into. 3. Supercaps need fixing. Titan stacking is overpowered because everyone worth mentioning is making them like sausages, motherships are equivalent to a two-boxed carrier for twenty times the cost.
128th ABC123 Eve Liberation Force Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.04.20 15:10:00 - [556] 1. Cruise Missiles need to be buffed. Make them either ALOT faster (and decrease their flighttime to proportionate range. Making them more viable as long range anti bs weapon compared to guns. Or make them do more damage against smaller ships. 2. IMHO make implants cheaper. A set of standards goes between 70-90 mil I think, in some 0.0 conflicts getting podded happens very frequently, having a jumpclone might work for a casual pvper but people that are involved daily absolutely pay a FORTUNE on implants. 3. ALL THE T2 ITEM PRICES ARE GOING UP!!! Do something about mineral availability for t2 production, thats moonminerals. Alchemy didn't do the trick.
Arakkis Melanogaster Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:22:00 - [557] 1) UI lag. No matter if you are the only person in a solar system, there is ALWAYS lag in terms of input of commands and execution of actions. This is unacceptable given the technology available today. No other MMO I have played has had this problem, and in many other games the action is instantaneous. 2) UI complexity. Seriously, the amount of tabs and windows you have to go through to get one single piece of information is insane. This really needs to be made much more user friendly and intuitive. 3) Did I mention the UI? Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.
Great Artista Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:29:00 - [558] 1. ROCKETS. OR ROCKET SPECIALIZED SHIPS. 2. MARKET, STILL CAN'T FIND T3 FRIGS ON IT. 3. ARTILLERY _______ ◕◡◕
VCBee2888 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:31:00 - [559] 1. Minmatar battleships are not as good as the other 3 races for long range sniping. 2. The Naglafar, the Minmatar dreadnought is worse than all other 3 dreadnoughts. 3. Titan doomsdays are unbalanced and give too much power to 1 single pilot. To be able to kill all subcapital ships in a 250km radius with the press of one button is very unbalanced especially when multiple titan doomsdays are used in a battle.
DragonWarp	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:41:00 - [560] 1. Level 4 missions generating too much ISK. The ISK per hour from a level 4 mission in hi-sec at least should never exceed the ISK per hour of a half decent 0.0 system. So either boost 0.0 NPC bounties or preferably reduce hi-sec mission rewards and NPC bountys 2. Truesec 0.0, basically most of 0.0 has poor truesec and thus suck, an non-NPC 0.0 region should have 80% of it's systems with truesec lower than -0.80, in addition all 0.0 belts should have spawns in them,when you find every second belt empty it gets old very fast. 3. ECM effects vers other types of EWAR. ECM is drastically overpowered, and also chance based. It should be nerfed in some way, and have the chance removed. Perhaps make it so that it breaks the locks, and lowers the max locked targets by 1 (by 2 for T2 jammers). But they will be able to start relocking right away, thus making dampeners more useful too. 3b: Sleepers insta locking is rather broken, as is their not changing range based on dampeners or tracking disrupters. Having sleepers effected by more EWAR modules then just ECM and painters/webbers would be nice. ~Dragon

DorelZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:58:00 - [561] Originally by: OrangeAfroMan 1. Projectiles 2. 0.0 Mechanics - something needs to be done to make POSes more vulnerable to <100 man battleship fleets. In particular if Moon Harvesters and Silos were put outside pos shields it would force people to defend their space rather than just sit in an Outpost in their cynojammed system. This And if I may add 3.Nerf isk/hour in L4 hi-sec missions.
Fohrum Ahlt	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:01:00 - [562] Edited by: Fohrum Ahlt on 20/04/2009 17:02:45 1. Mining being one of the least efficient ways of getting minerals. 2. Most T1 manufactured items being worthless beyond their mineral costs. 3. High security war-dec griefing. (Not high sec war-decs in general.) NOTE: 1 & 2 can be solved by removing T1 Meta 0 loot from missions.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:09:00 - [563] Lvl 4 missions outweighing the rewards of low/nosec t2 ammo E-war drones
Zeerover DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:24:00 - [564] 1) Increase the amount of low-sec and NPC null-sec systems. Currently the game is composed of 1090 high-sec systems, 817 low-sec systems and 3524 null-sec systems. Of these 3524 null-sec systems only a fraction are in NPC space. The result of this is that only about 1/5th of the game is outside Empire and (potentially) Sov3+ areas, which in turn greatly limits the playground for gang and small fleet gameplay. IMO a good mix would be 1/4th high-sec, 1/4th low-sec, 1/4th npc null-sec and 1/4th player null-sec. On a flattened star-map you would see empire encircled by secondary faction low-sec regions, encircled by NPC null-sec regions, encircled by regular null-sec regions. This could be done by adding low-sec only regions with Ammatar, Khanid, ORE, SOE, Thukker and Mordu's legion sovereignty - and/or make 1 Caldari megacorp (Ishokune?) a faction. Outside of these new low-sec regions there could be a belt of NPC null-sec with Pirate Factions and ORE, Thukker and Mordu's legion holding sovereignty. There should be many connections between the low-sec regions and NPC null-sec regions, so few choke points could be established, making it easier for people to venture out there. As it stands now low-sec regions and NPC null-sec is greatly underrepresented, which leaves little to venture out into for Empire dwellers. 4 jumps of low-sec and you're smack in a major player faction's null-space. 2) further fix low-sec by making it more lucrative: The above mentioned factions (that reside in low-sec and NPC null-sec) would have much sought after LP stores - for instance being the only source of faction rigs. Nocxium, Isogen & Mexallon would be used a lot more in manufacturing, bringing back low-sec mining (the reason most comes from mission and drone loot is that few mine the low-sec belts). 3) Focus more attention on the courier profession. 4 ship classes total (industrial, transport, freighter and jump freighter) is far to little diversity. Compare this to the myriad of combat ships available. Make more versatile ships. Transport ships that have the cargo of a low-end industrial, the firepower of a cruiser, the tank of a battlecruiser and the agility/signature/mass/speed/lock time of a battleship is a start. I.e. less specialized ships for people venturing out into these regions for long periods. 4) Make Missiles viable for PVP. In small-ship warfare missiles (and rockets) do little to no dmg. In fleet fights the delayed damage greatly affects their usage. Oh and make faction industrial ships:)
Aiko Intaki Lodizal Capsuleers Lodizal Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:36:00 - [565] Originally by: Fohrum Ahlt Edited by: Fohrum Ahlt on 20/04/2009 17:02:45 1. Mining being one of the least efficient ways of getting minerals. 2. Most T1 manufactured items being worthless beyond their mineral costs. ... NOTE: 1 & 2 can be solved by removing T1 Meta 0 loot from missions. This. Another way to add value to T1 BPOs specifically: Make the ME/PE levels on T1 BPCs impact invention. 3. Low sec - abandon it. Stop trying to create compelling gameplay reasons to go there over high sec and focus on high security space vs. 0.0 (player and NPC controlled) space. Treat low sec as simply part of the journey between the two and not an actual destination in and of itself.
Sonreir Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Libera Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 18:00:00 - [566] 1.) Projectiles- More Alpha, same DPS, better tracking 2.) Rockets - More DPS 3.) T2 Ammo - Make it worthwhile to use
yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs	Posted - 2009.04.20 18:16:00 - [567] 1) Rockets 2) Pos warfare. This is currently keeping me out of 0.0 due to its extortionate dullness, currently we can either bring a massive fleet and grind for hours or not bother at all. Some inbetween options would be nice especially in terms of resource harassment. 3) ECCM. Sensor boosters, cap boosters and other anti ewar mods all have useful combat benefits but ECCM just protects you from falcons and is otherwise a wasted slot. (Making you 0.00000000583% harder to scan doesn't count) Sig_________________________________________________________________________________ My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums.
Oche Firestar ThunderStar Inc	Posted - 2009.04.20 18:29:00 - [568] 1) Loyalty point store needs rework. Right now all stores are the same except for minor differences in implants. In the past each corporation used to offer items based somewhat on what that corporation produced. Would be nice to see each corporation offer up something 'unique' that they build i.e. limited run of perhaps t2 ships (for a LOT of loyalty points). 2) Clogged up station exits. While nowhere near what is was like in the past exits are getting clogged with a lot of traffice. While most is moving away too many are people who are repairing or testing or just plain sitting there with a ton of drones out. Would be nice if the exit was a lot broader rather than in a narrow stream which can lead to long times aligning to warp. Other than that dont have much to complain about.
yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs	Posted - 2009.04.20 19:08:00 - [569] Adding a 4th item i'd forgotten about but is very broken: Originally by: Arkady Sadik 3) Docking Games An appropriately set up ship in dock range can reduce the risk it puts up with to near zero even when aggressing thanks to the ability to deaggress and dock when things look bad. Station games are dull, a 15 minute ban from docking if you initiate combat would add some interesting baiting tactics to the game Sig_________________________________________________________________________________ My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums.
Durnin Stormbrow	Posted - 2009.04.20 19:47:00 - [570] Hi-sec Lv4s. Nothing else has the isk/hour/risk reward. 20m/hr or better for near zero risk, and no significant commitment of time or assets. Weather the answer is to nerf Lv4s or to buff lo/null sec I don't care, players just need a reason to want to leave the cash cow mission hubs to go find the real money. also... The reprocessed minerals from these missions is skewing the mineral market to the point that mining Veldspar in a 1.0 system is more profitable isk/hr than Hedbergite in 0.0 BEFORE factoring in risk. When missiles give a higher mineral yield than mining lasers, there's a problem. POS spamming for Sov. With alliances forced to spam POSes to get their Sov, they have to find ways to make those POSes sustainable. If that means selling moon minerals or researching at less than cost to offset the needs of a military installation, so be it. Moons should be about science, industry, and the occasional base of operation. Sov should be about controlling the planets or the space itself. Too much of 0.0 space has little or no economic potential. This allows large alliances to gain control over vast tracks of space relatively unopposed, since there is no benefit to a small alliance in challenging the big boys for a fringe constellation worth no more than low-sec. Case in point, the constellation in Esoteria containing 111-F1. 8 systems on the edge of known space, all with truesec between -0.01 and -0.10. Every null-sec constellation should have two or three systems with real economic potential and be worth fighting for.

Asavar Kul Amarr Black Dog Serenade	Posted - 2009.04.20 19:49:00 - [571] Supporting the ideas of some people here 1. Mining being one of the least efficient ways of getting minerals. - by Fohrum Ahlt 2. Mining: It's boring as hell and as a result there are macrominers everywhere. Add some user input into this, there are dozens of ideas floating around. - by Thenoran 3. Balance low-end minerals vs high-end minerals: low end mineral prices are rising and high-end miner prices are falling. Veldspar is more valuable then every ore up to Hedgebite when counting isk/m3. Tritanium is more valuable then pyrite. Drone regions created a huge source of high-end minerals ruining the mineral market. - by JanSVK
Annika Paige	Posted - 2009.04.20 19:51:00 - [572] Edited by: Annika Paige on 20/04/2009 19:55:30 T2 Ammo - Faction ammo is way out of balance versus T2 variants. Faction Ships - Ashimmu, Cruor, etc These ships just are near worthless to try to fly due to their cost versus use versus other comparable nonfaction ships. T1 Item Manufacture - It really sucks that the manufacturing available to new players is quickly dashed by the fact it nearly worthless to make. Maybe make some sort of mini-inventing to turn basic T1 to better meta named t1 items?
Commander Vic Minmatar The Red Hessians	Posted - 2009.04.20 21:20:00 - [573] Ok, only three... 1) Rockets, they're pretty sad as is and could use a boost in damage. 2) Projectile turrets, these are pretty sad as well. Artillery in general (not just large and x-large) performs poorly compared to both rails & beams (and pulses which is amusing since those are 'short' range weapons) due to comparably short range and spending half the time reloading instead of shooting. The advantage of not using cap is dimished by the poor capacitors on minmatar ships resulting in them essentially requiring capless guns so their guns need something else. Fighting in falloff means what little damage they normally do is reduced even further, not so bad with small autocannons since the disparity with other small short ranged guns isn't as large but it's still there. 3) T2 ammo, the bonus they provide is not enough to offset the penalty they come with except in a few cases with the long range ammo.
tom ternquist	Posted - 2009.04.20 21:21:00 - [574] 1. Make high sec less profitable and 0.0 more so (introduce an actually profitable source of mining low-ends in 0.0-"super veld") 2. Rebalance weapons- increase optimal and damage and/or decrease pg on large artillery, buff blasters, rockets, etc 3. Increase EW specialization bonuses- ECM ships(blackbird, falcon, etc) get a 15% bonus to strength, why don't the celestis, arbitrator and bellicose have a similarly large bonus? And why are there not modules like Signal Distortion Amps and rigs (PDP and PDA) for the other EW races?
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2009.04.20 21:56:00 - [575] 1) medium and large blasters (and also XL probably, but i don't fly Moroses, so can't tell 4 sure) in todays pvp environment. 2) the Proteus model, it's the worst t3, make it at least vertical or somemsuch 3) damps and the ships dedicated for them, damps seem pointless on them. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Leanne Esiel Renegade Serenity	Posted - 2009.04.20 22:05:00 - [576] Minmatar ships - BS and Larger needs an overhaul. Bumping - Tiny frigates shouldn't be able to bump something 100x their size sending it sailing off at speeds that ship can't even dream about. (doubt it will happen see as everyone else is worried about level 4 missions. Why do they do this I have to assume they have some sort of mission envy. Level 4 missions may be worth alot but if that is your main source of income you are not keeping up with the people who really make money in this game.) Finally I'll join the t2 ammo fight, I may use t2 guns but I almost never use the ammo, faction is just better.
GyokZoli Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.20 22:55:00 - [577] 1. Nerf whiners about hisec level4 missions being too profitable 2. Rockets need some love
VFR ViLLaN Dark Ashes Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.20 22:57:00 - [578] Personally I like the fact that there is an unbalance between certain ships, it makes life interesting and as long as there is a situation where a mix of ships provides balance then all good. Too much swinging of the nerf bat means that everything becomes the same, which would suck. The only thing that has ever really ****ed me off about balance is skills required for T2 items. Why is it that a missileman can have T2 torps without needing T2 heavy specialisation first but the turret based large specialisations require both the small and medium specialisation. Still loving this game even after more than four years, keep it coming CCP. ViLLaN
Leon Caedo	Posted - 2009.04.20 23:06:00 - [579] 1) 0.0 space: make it easier for small corps to get in 2) Low sec: buff how much money you can make to compete with lv 4 missions in highsec 3) Blasters need love
Dee Carson Caldari Seppuku Warriors	Posted - 2009.04.20 23:07:00 - [580] 1. There is no counter for CovOps. Fix by adding a new destroyer specifically designed to hunt cloaked ships. Serves as both a balance fix and a hull buff. 2. Blaster tracking is broken as detailed several times above. 3. RR (particularly with OOC reppers and combined with station humping) can't be countered by standoff jamming platforms post-ECM nerf. Fix by adding sensor strength penalty for fitting RR's and by giving the OOC reppers the same docking timers as combatant aggro. DC http://deecarson.blogspot.com/

ViTkoo	Posted - 2009.04.21 01:04:00 - [581] 1. Blasters need boost, I think you should add some ammo which would increase the range because blasters just suck so badly. 2. The Armor tank sucks as well because when compared to shield tank , you can have a fast ship with a relatively pretty good tank, but when having armor tank which makes ship slower with blasters which can be used effectively at 3km makes a terrible combination and it's actualy useless. 3. I think you could also fix the tracking speed of sentry drones so they can be used for moving targets as well.
Valorous Bob TARSHISH FOUNDATION	Posted - 2009.04.21 04:35:00 - [582] 1) Blasterboats need web bonus 2) Faction ships need unique models (ex: Vindicator) 3) Fix Rockets!!!! _______________________________________________
Bonny Lee Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.04.21 07:10:00 - [583] 1. Projectile Weapon Systems, Blaster + Tempest Help the first, look @ the second, give PG to the third. 2. T2-Ammo Look especially at the High-DPS ones. 3. LvL4 vs. Nullsec & Lowsec - Get rid of the current truesec-system - Allow Agents @ Playeroutposts - Nerf High-Ore in the Loot-Tables of Mission-Loot - Relook Risk-vs-Reward of LvL4 in HS (not in Lowsec)
Matting NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.04.21 07:28:00 - [584] Edited by: Matting on 21/04/2009 07:37:04 Top three is hard and I didn't see much of what I'm suggesting in what I quickly looked over in this thread. 1. Webs Changing webs to be a tad more effective (~70%) will still allow small ships to evade most damage and not all right now (tracking formula maybe needs to be a bit better for this?). Helps fix the issue of the minmatar recons loosing a big part of their job and allows them to at least get decent speed reduction with the standard 2 webs. Blasters won't be as bad again and will gain a bit of that tracking it lost from the web nerf. Again the tracking formula should account for spinning the wrong direction and getting at least some hits compared to currently never catching the target. 2. Capital jump range / JB range I feel the range especially with calibration is just too big for non industrial capital ships. Currently its very easy for a cap fleet to move across a few regions or to protect an assets a few regions away because it may only be 2 cyno jumps from their home system. Change the bonus to calibration to be smaller and lower the base jumping distance. Maybe also lower calibration skill pre-reqs down to operation 4 not 5. Note: I've got a character with calibration 5. Leave JF where they are in terms of distance so logistics can still be not too painful. Allowing JF to change from cargo to maintenance bay could also be nice (like T3 sub systems). This could also help with the sov issues and encourage alliances/corps to hold smaller areas. It might also stop certain corps/alliances opportunisticly hot dropping a few regions over for juicy cap kills. I've only read about this but it spoils the fun for me. 3. Pod risk vs reward Have no idea how to fix this one. With the latest nerf to skill training after being podded only made this situation worse. Loss is something you have to accept in eve if you want to PVP but the training aspect of eve is very addictive and getting new toys/skills faster is always good. Currently high sec residents don't have to worry about being podded (except wars / suicide) really at all, get one set of good implants with the same reward as someone in lowsec/0.0 and never have to replace them let alone the cost of replacing your clone. Now the clone isn't a huge amount until you get older but its still a cost for PVPers that the PVEers never have to deal with while in their risk free area. It just has erked me lately that high sec players get better rewards (+5s) for less risk (this does nerf my own alts of course). Very silly idea: using anything over +2's in high sec is illegal (RPers can think of something) and make your pod a free for all, Maybe a chance (hate chance stuff) being caught and shot by NPC's (ship and pod). Then you just get people parking characters in station with +5s but it does limit their play style.
Virusonositel	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:06:00 - [585] 1. Naglfar 2. Tempest 3. BlackOps
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:25:00 - [586] (1) T2 BPO's - remove them or make it possible to get them without having to buy from another player. (2) Mineral supply - Veldspar vs other ores and mining vs other mineral inlets (drones, loot). It feels a bit off balance. Would be good to take a closer look at numbers in there. (3) New Scorpion sucks. Taking into account needed training time to reach fleet ranges and lowered effectivity at that range after that training time it is no longer reasonable to fly Scorpion in fleets, even if fully specialized. One can get more bang out of training time by training turret fleet ship.
CaperPuts Minmatar Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:32:00 - [587] 1. Artillery. I really don't see any advantage whatsoever with using artillery. Terrible DPS, terrible tracking, decent range. Why bother? Doesn't use cap I guess... but Minmatar ships have worse cap recharge anyways so it's irrelevant. Back in the day before the HP buff for all ships... they had a better role. When you shot a volley, the enemy really REALLY felt it. The DPS wasn't ideal, but you get a couple tempests together and you all shoot at once and it was absolutely devastating. After the HP buff, it received a 5% damage boost to help with the alpha, but it didn't really impact it at all. I have pretty much maxed gunnery, and I sieged a POS in a tempest with artillery and sentries. Using EMP... I managed to do the lowest damage out of all the BS's in the fleet at 7%. The next highest was a Raven with Battleship 3 which got 8% and all of the other ships got 9-14%. If it could get about 5-10% more DPS overall, with a slower RoF and a higher damage mod, that would make me very happy. Or hell, reduce the power grid needs for 1200's and 1400's slightly and make 1400's easier to fit and throw in 1600mm artillery >:) I'm training Large Energy Turrets 5 now, and Amarr BS 5 soon because I want some viable long range ship/weapon. 2. Naglfar. It's freaking vertical. I had a Naglfar, and ended up selling it. It's sexy as hell, but beyond that, inferior to the other dreads by a large margin. 3. Close range Tech 2 Ammo. Who the hell uses Quake or any of the close range ammo? No one smart. They suck, period. They need a damage boost or SOMETHING to stand out from the close range faction counterparts. Because as it stands, they're terrible with the negative side effects at the moment. Want to get creative? Maybe neutralizing a small amount of the enemy's capacitor with each shot. Hell, I don't care, they need some loving.
Tyby Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:33:00 - [588] Edited by: Tyby on 21/04/2009 08:37:15 1. Minmatatar: right now the definition of minmatar when it comme to bs and above it's this: the lowest DPS + the lowest EHP = the highest SP req; there is 0 reasons for a new pilot to train for those ships, and 99% of the old matar pilots are using mostly others races bs/caps. right now matar race is on his way to estinction and when it's comme to projectiles....arty optimal+fallof< raill optimal...,but yea," minmatars are fighting in fallof" 2. Blasters 3. faction ships(pirate faction), and by boosting them you can at least partially resolve and the "l4 empire agents problem"
Karma Vortex Incorporated	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:39:00 - [589] 1: War decs. pay to grief, while the victim can do nothing to stop it. practically doesn't even cost anything. 2: lasers. can we please get a better solution than "10% bonus to cap use of <class> energy turrets"? on almost every single amarr ship, that takes up a bonus that should be used for something else. (and fitting a laser on any non-amarr ship will not get you more damage anymore, like in the olden days). 3: sorry. can't think of anything to put here.
ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:52:00 - [590] High sec anamolies and sigs They are finished and unlike low sec amols wormholes and 00 and wspace which take 10-15 minutes to vanish off sig results and scanner take until the next dt, line em all up or it makes a mockery of youre dynamic spawning system' Sleeper loot And the remaining bugs in the scnaning system

DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 08:57:00 - [591] Missiles/Rockets need a revisit (2 full Volleys of Fury HM to kill a pod doing 0 m/s ? ) Titans need a new role/Weapon. The "packs of titans" being used will increase and will menace fleet warfare in 0.0 space. ________________ God is my Wingman
Cazzah Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.21 09:02:00 - [592] Originally by: Tippia T2 Ammo vs Faction ammo T2 is harder to create, more expensive to create, and worse in pretty much every imaginable way due to how it affects the ship at large (reduced tracking on already slow-tracking weapons, slows the ship down, kills capacitor, makes the ship easier to hit). Some of ù but far from all ù the long-range stuff works because at those ranges, the downsides don't make any differenceà but that only tips the balance the other way and further shows how poorly though-out these downsides are. 0.0 warfare, in particular POS-Based Sovereignty. Too easy to create and maintain vs. soul-crushing boredom to attack. Not so much a classic stats-balance issue, but one of motivational balance: there is little disincentive against spam POSes all ove the place, whereas on the other side, POS spam create huge disincentives against attacking due to tedium rather than actual difficulty. Empire warfare through wardeccing. Entirely based around station camping on the very very very few occasions when either side doesn't simply evade the wardec by jumping corps. Economic and counter-logistical warfare is a fools errand. Again, not stats-based balancing but rather gaming mechanics that makes the (supposed) fighting non-existant because the balance between what means are available to the attacker are not in synch with what's available to the defender. This. ______ Cazzah, Recruiting Manager Eve University
ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.04.21 09:06:00 - [593] low sec guardianship of systems for the empires outside of FW 00 factional warfare
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.04.21 09:28:00 - [594] 1. Minmatar BS sized ships need some overhaul, they lose to every other bs when it comes to damage. 2. T2 close range ammo 3. ECCM. My suggestion: Remove the ECCM Modules and introduce ECCM Scripts for Sensor Boosters. Jammers could get Racial Scripts maybe. Wildfire - New Horizons
Cpt Hook	Posted - 2009.04.21 09:36:00 - [595] 1. Minmatar bs/dread/artys 2. Pirate faction ships need some attention, last time they where looked back in...2005? 2004? 3. scrambler, web&blasters; right now, a gallente recon with a scrambler can "web" a target much better then a dual web/rapier . the scrambler right now is like the nos prenerfed, it has 2 functions with no drawback;
fogbird	Posted - 2009.04.21 09:53:00 - [596] 1. Assault ships - all: 4th bonus. - Retribution: -1low, +1 mid. - Hawk: whatever it is, it will help. 2. 0.0, Low Sec and Solo PVP - Make it more attractive for small corps! - In low sec Local should show intel about gangs made of npc corp chars. 3. Boost missions, nerf mission whiners - Make them more diverse. - Less drops in general, no meta 1 drops at all. - Make NPCs pod. - Let NPCs cycle targets like drones, alts, salvagers and carebear hunters. Those whining about mission risk reward ratio are often those that live off the easy and riskfree carebear kills. - The perfectly save, sovereign protected money printing machine that is t2 production and moon mining should be less monopolised.
Zackalwe Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:14:00 - [597] 1. Balance e-war. Which will thus balance recons. Caldari ECM is still much better than tracking disruptors, sensor dampners, painters. 2. Fix blaster-boats. They no longer have a place in the modern fleet. Neutron megas, Deimos. Due to the speednerf and their ridiculously short range they are next to useless. The other end of the scale are pulse laser platforms, zealots, pulse apocs. These ships are actually useful in a fleet. 3. Low-sec is under-utilised because of the risk vs reward. It is as dangerous (sometimes more than in fact) as 0.0 yet it does not have the same rewards. Highsec should stay the same imho, but boost lowsec rewards from 0.1 to 0.3 to be in line with 0.0 maybe a shade less.
Raask Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:38:00 - [598] Same theme here: 1) Minmatar ships need a serious revision. Large gunnery, subpar capitals, split weapon systems, speed nerfs, SP requirements all have made this very important to rethink as a whole. 2) Refining and reprocessing should be reduced at NPC stations. Boost POS refining capability above that of NPC stations, thereby providing incentives for low sec industrial expansion. 3) Low sec could probably stand its own expansion boost. Maybe epic mission arcs, better exploration sites, better ratting capability, etc. The current security hits for low sec aggression seem overly punitive. Do something to make it come alive again (FW was a good start, now flesh it out).
Veveritz	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:41:00 - [599] Fix the medium artillery for minmatar. 720mm absolutely suck. 10 clip size ? 250mw powergrid ? Like wtf X_x. Also where's my third option for arties?
ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:51:00 - [600] 720mm artys need looking at, scrips for ECCM to

Xia Kairui	Posted - 2009.04.21 11:12:00 - [601] Edited by: Xia Kairui on 21/04/2009 11:12:58 1) Short range weapons need looking at. While blasters are good on paper they are outclassed by pulses in overall damage when you take getting in range et all into account. Rockets look bad even on paper :). I can't judge ACs. 2) EWar in general still needs to be brought to a level. Tracking Disruption seems to be fine, but Target Painting as EWar? Damps are still underpowered. And ECM still suffers from the "target is condemned to do nothing" which is very boring for the target. I'd prefer something completely new whose effects can be meliorated somewhat as it is possible with damping or disrupting. 3) NPC rats. I've recently ran a bunch of missions in Ammatar space and found out that they are vastly more profitable than Caldari or Gallente since the amount of valuable salvage parts is excessively higher. Yes, that's a player-driven market, but it should be obvious that capacitor-related rigs are in higher demand than the stuff you can build with Guristas or Serpentis salvage. In addition the Amarr flavor LP store offers some of the juiciest rewards.
Katana Ishii Caldari EZ Technologies	Posted - 2009.04.21 11:13:00 - [602] 1. minmatar weapon systems and some of their ships could use a little improvement . im pretty sure jag and wolf bonuses got switched , artillery sucks , minmatar BS do more dmg with lasers , give rapier a web strength bonus instead of a TP bonus , cyclone needs more cpu , minmatar dread sucks big time , fighting in fallof causes too much of a dps loss . 2. gallente weapon systems and some of their ships could use a little improvement . blasters need more tracking , railguns need more alpha and less range , thorax and deimos need more pg and speed and maybe a 4th midslot for the hac to make them work , drones need better ai - after all those years they still wont stay together , EOS needs to be looked at since it's next to useless 3. Caldari's pvp potential has declined every patch . Missiles need to get unnerfed a bit , ECM needs balancing ... again , remove dronebay and hybrid bonus from falcon and give it something usefull 4. less important but still annoying : the Apoc can't fit a full rack of mega beam lasers II without a fitting mod or implant while all the other sniping BS can fit their biggest gun with room to spare , so it could use 5% more PG or something
Sureau Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.04.21 11:17:00 - [603] 1) 0.0 space ought to be unsafe, not unsafer. (security, ressources....) 2) lack of player/corporation/alliance owned structure: we need more than control tower and outpost. 3) improve UI
Marquise Zena I.X Research	Posted - 2009.04.21 11:46:00 - [604] Booster production. This is one area that needs some serious rethinking. It could even be used as wedge to draw people to lowsec with gas clouds and reaction drops at their most prolific in lawless low sec where pirates and outlaws thrive.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:00:00 - [605] Edited by: The Djego on 21/04/2009 12:12:53 Hm hard one, so many things to take but only 3 things to state. Since Agility allready gets looked at well here some other things: 1. Blaster ships and blasters. I personaly think the main issue is web power, 70-75% web power(from a 60% one with a role bonus on dedicated Blaster ships) would go a long way, fixing tracking problems and range issues at once and gives blaster ships back her bite at web range. Also a 10-15% increase in DPS to make them hurt again. In return reduce I would reduce the Falloff of large blasters to give other ships a better advantage out of Web range against blaster BS. Basicly a Blaster ship should be superior in web range and inferior out of it, this worked for the 2.5 years pre QR for me, I would like to have this back. 2. Projektieles, Artis -> increase Alpha + double clipsize. Rework Falloff to give you about 50-60% the DPS at Optimal + 1x Falloff instead of the 38% you get there atm. Bring T1 and Faction Amnos in line with the Charges and Crystals damagewhise. Fix Pest -> 10% Damage and 10% Falloff per Level + 100/150 Drones + 10-15km more base lock range so you get a very decend fleet sniper(imagine ALPHA that starts meaning something again) and a preaty nice medium range AK ship. Not as a DPS/Tank/EHP monster but as extrem flexible ship(Slots, Drones, Range, Speed), dealing next to full damage within 24km(including the Falloff change and bonus) while having lots of range to play vs support/antisupport in gangs simlar like Puls ships. 3. Faction Ships, the changes to Sansha where great(also the rework of the Fleet Stabber and the Navy Omen) why you guyes stoped this projekt you started for EA? Faction Ships should at least match her T2 counterparts in combat abilitys while not beeing better/worse but diffrent by the bonuses and the slot layout. If I could wish for something, make the speed/agility advantage count again and increas base cap on serpentis ships, drop the cap bonus and give 15% Falloff per level -> very fast Blaster Ships with a huge range(for a Blaster Ships) making AK style combat possible with Blasters while still having the option to close in and performe like other Blaster ships. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Dungheap Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:01:00 - [606] 1. finish fix of T2 ammo. t2 shortrange ammo useful, rockets longer range for anti-tackler use, javelin missile penalty changed and better sig/exp radius maybe a rof penalty for them. 2. fix blasters by giving hybrid ammo a tracking bonus for them. scale it from anti-matter giving most thru lead or a lower dmg ammo giving no bonus. maybe a signature bonus on null / void and halve the tracking penalties. 3. while i'm not actively involved in empire war decs, the fact that someone can assist a wt with little danger is ridiculous. tweak aggro mechanics here. bonus: all pilots complaining about lvl4's risk/reward show your math plz. there's a reason running missions is called 'grinding'. as to the effect the resizing and reprocessing changes had, mission runner loot is a drop in the bucket on a mineral market still fairly fuxord by the shuttle / trit cap removal. (which made trit the most profitable to mine and removed one of the few incentives to enter lo sec..)
Haramir Haleths	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:09:00 - [607] 1. Autocannons are to powerful. Nerf them 2. Black Ops .... Fuel Bay, at least 8 LY Jumprange with maxed skills 3. Ishtar is to powerful. Nerf them
ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:11:00 - [608] 1. autocannons smaller ones boost bigger ones tweak 2. black ops given bonus to probeing 3. Fix these new slew of bugs in the scanning system
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:28:00 - [609] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 21/04/2009 12:29:49 1: war decs - control over the war dec is completely in the hands of the attacker. Both the attacker and the target corp should have equal oppurtunity to end the war. 2: remote repairing of a pilot with an aggression timer does not transfer the aggression timer to the repping pilot. This mechanic in combination with out of corp or non-outlaw alts is the basis for all kinds of lame tactics. 3: value of 0.0 space - some areas are nearly worthless, while others are overly valuable. Let 0.0 sov holders develop their 0.0 space (lower truesec, increase the amount of asteroid belts, maybe add npc agents in their outposts) through infrastructure that to some degree is vulnerable to smallish gangs. This resolves the 0.0 space value imbalance, increases incentives for 0.0 small gang warfare and allows 0.0 space to sustain more players simultaneously. Vote Dierdra for CSM! Director of Training :: EVE University
Cataracts GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:41:00 - [610] 1. Titan doomsdays. Worst idea ever put into an MMO. Remove them. 2. Missiles suck. Increase their flight speed by 4x and reduce their flight time accordingly. Also rebalance them in general to be useful for pvp. 3. Rebalance Risk vs Reward. Make 0.0 much more attractive than lowsec, make lowsec much more attractive than highsec.

ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:46:00 - [611] 1. redo titans 2. leave missiles as is 3. fixing probong
Jaffnar Borg	Posted - 2009.04.21 12:55:00 - [612] 1.) Weapon system balance: Rockets, Large Blasters and Large Minmatar Weapons need buffs 2.) Leadership bonuses and Warfare Links should only work grid wide, because POS-hugging, afk entities must not give out major buffs 3.) Drones: Interface, T2 Modules, more Drone Space for all Battleships, maybe a Faction Dominix
retro sophie	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:03:00 - [613] 1 Rockets 2 T2 Ammo 3 Projectile Artillery
Zedah Zoid Nutz N Boltz Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:04:00 - [614] Edited by: Zedah Zoid on 21/04/2009 13:04:21 In no particular order 1) Bounty system is broken thus unbalancing the game as it removes incentive for players to place bounties and gather revenge against those that have wronged them. Bounties should be assignable to a person/corp and/or tradeable on the market somehow so that the person collecting the bounty purchases a permit or similar from the player that placed the bounty. Same with kill rights. Only a player that has purchased the rights to the bounty will be able to collect the bounty. 2) T1 loot dropped in missions. This unbalances the mining profession and is unnecessary competition for mineral supply. T1 modules are already cheap enough that any new player can buy what they want after running the tutorials and they need to learn to use the market at some point anyway. Restrict missions to dropping named loot only. 3) Moon minerals never run out. This creates static "must live here" zones over a long period of time. I think it would be good if moon minerals were depleted eventually(time frame??). You would then have to rescan the moon to determine what new minerals were available. High end minerals may spawn at a moon that previously did not have them. Once spawned they would remain until mined out thus encouraging more exploration. Each moon may have maybe 2 or 3 minerals present at the same time and a new high-end mineral might spawn at a moon where only an existing low-end mineral exists right now. Might encourage wildcat type exploration for moon minerals. Sure would be nice if you scanned your low-end moon and suddenly noticed you had about a months worth of high-end minerals available to be mined. Might make for some overnight ISK billionaires. New money is good because people not used to having it spend crazy and buy expensive toys. Thanks for asking CCP
D'Artagnan Bladerunners KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:14:00 - [615] 1. Projectiles, and Minmater Ships: BS and Above 2. Titans + Doomsdays 3. Give me a Tech II Hurricane
Ixich Divinity Within Vort3x.	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:20:00 - [616] 1: Make local Delayed in Low-sec/Null-sec. Using a chat tool for logistics is just plain broken. If this isn't wanted, perhaps add an anchorable structure that Delays local... 2: Alot of modules and ships need a once over, and their roles taken into account: T2 ammo, AF bonuses + (Why does Enyo/iskhur have optimal range! Change to Falloff please), Large blasters, Large Artillery cannons, Retribution's mids, Deimos, Rockets, Defender missiles, ECM drones, Minmatar's Capitals, to name but a few... 3: 0.0 Sovereignty Mechanics needs to be more fluid and less Blob. -Ix-
Rordan D'Kherr Amarr	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:31:00 - [617] 1.) Too much profit with no risk in highsec (= lvl 4 missions, ore). 2.) POS warfare - yeah, you know... 3.) RR is overpowered due to the latest ECM ships nerf.
Miasia Gallente Forschung und Entwicklungscorp	Posted - 2009.04.21 13:32:00 - [618] 1. Wardec system: It is practically a "Pay to grief" system. Especially against player corps of new players. They dont stand a chance against veterans which decide to grief them. 2. Moon mining: The moon-minerals never run out of supply from the moon or change location. Make them "depletable" and let them recharge slowly. make more moons with R64/R32 minerals. With the depletability they may change hands and locations. One R64 moon is then a "fat big golden nugget" which does not print iskies for ever. 3. Alchemy is not really useful (iskwise and effortwise) to replace the R64 mineral supply.
Georn VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:00:00 - [619] Edited by: Georn on 21/04/2009 14:31:59 Edited by: Georn on 21/04/2009 14:25:18 1) Boost Blasters.. or Blasterships. + change the tracking formula to allow hitting at 0 (distance) 2) NPCs should refrain from attacking / killing drones of a disconnected player 3) Seed mission agents to outposts :D lvl 4 missions rewards are fine IMHO They are the only way a casual player can blow something up in peace during the two hours a week he has and still get somewhere in the long run.. without having to measure the "long run" in AE. Name another activity where I can do this. ____________ nerf metagaming, boost fun
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:07:00 - [620] -Titans (make them STATIONS THAT CAN MOVE) -arties (keep the dps the same, double/triple the alpha?) -Armor repping (why isn't there a armor rep amp?)

Lord Wulfengheist Amarr Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:07:00 - [621] Edited by: Lord Wulfengheist on 21/04/2009 14:14:10 Edited by: Lord Wulfengheist on 21/04/2009 14:07:43 1.) Armor repair units capacitor use. Knock it down. Lasers eat up enough cap already, and when you add the drain from a repair unit, the ship ends up being useless in short order. One cannot passively rebuild their armor. "But shield boosters eat up cap too!" Yes, but one can still get shield back without using it, and its not like one has to devote their cap to weapons and the booster all the time. 2.) Rockets. The equivalents in guns have a longer range with more damage. And the DPS from them is pathetic. "Use Guns!" Without turret points? 3.) War Deccing - most of the time, it's legalized griefing. There's no motivation to "win," or to even fight. It would be nice if a target actually appeared. "You're just a care bear who can't fight!" Something to fight would be nice... Edit: Fixed a formatting issue.
Zey Nadar Gallente Stormwatch Galactic Enforcers of Serenity	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:16:00 - [622] Edited by: Zey Nadar on 21/04/2009 14:19:22 1. Blasters need improvement in at least tracking. Reconsider T2 blaster ammo tracking penalty please. 2. Sovereignty could be more dynamic 3. Make destroyers meaningful. A slot or two somewhere could help. Good job with Apocrypha! And I mean it, just saying thanks.
Korr'Tanas Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:39:00 - [623] 1. RR gangs (especially with out of corp chars) are overpowered. 2. T2 ammo is mostly useless - get rid of penalties. 3. Did anyone mention the Taranis yet? Way too much DPS... it's an interceptor, not an AF.
Darius Mirat	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:46:00 - [624] 1. Naglfar has a bad slot & turret layout 2. Artillery is way to weak 3. T2 Ammo need to be looked at
Erika Bronz Gallente The Wyld Hunt Saints Amongst Sinners	Posted - 2009.04.21 14:57:00 - [625] 1 -Missions: Difficulty is too low for a lot of missions. Something is really, really wrong when one need only a Medium Armor Repairer to run through a level 4 mission. ISK pr hour is ok, ISK vs risk is screwed, at least for level 4. 2 -Drones: They have their own targeting system, one should be able to command drones to engage targets without ship having a lock. For instance in selected item window. And will there be T2 EW-drones? 3 -Short range turrets: Redo the tracking formula. It doesn't make sense at all.
Selest Cayal Gallente Nex Exercitus Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.21 15:00:00 - [626] 1. Blasters need a bit more range: of falloff. Example: Blaster fitted MegaT. On a Large gate like the ones between Regions, Will almost never get a good hit due to its range. Compared to other races "shortrange" modules they have way to short Optimal. especially Large blasters. 2. Introduce the PowerCore module to POSes. if you want more guns on a ship you slap on a Reactor control unit. On a pos you should be able to do the same. The CPU to POWER converter. This is somthing already introduced into EVE's Item database and makes sence. Fleet battles are so big not that a deathstar pos not longer is a huge threat. So add a module that allows the POS owner to add more guns if they have plenty of CPU left. 3. Motherships needs a Boost OR production cost reduction. Atm A mothership is to expensive to use as a carrier. If you compare the bonuses and abilities to the cost, you quickly see that the Ship is not worth the isk. solution is to either introduce something that boosts the usefullness or dramaticly reduce the price. EW immunity, larger drone bay and ships hanger bay is not realy worth 12 - 13 Bill. if you compare it to a Carrier. Give them Jumpportals (like Titans), bigger bandwith for drones/fighters(more deployed drones). somthing. OR Cut the price to a few bill. and not 15bill like it is now.
Cambata Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.21 15:22:00 - [627] War Dec system is crap fix it. RR of war targets should set aggro timers. Drone EWar needs work and where are the drone bandwidth mods/riggs.
Lord Cath	Posted - 2009.04.21 15:49:00 - [628] 1. The Assault frigs could use a bit of looking into. 2.the bounty system has been broken for years and ive read some decent ideas on here to make it better. 3. looking into some tech II ammo, to make it more useful instead of useless.
ian666 Minmatar Lamb Federation Navy C0VEN	Posted - 2009.04.21 16:28:00 - [629] MINMATAR ARTY = TOO LOW DPS, TOO HIGH PG REQs Vargur with 4x 1400mm T2 12870/9875 PG, 316dps, 30km optimal range Paladin with 4x Tachs T2 14850/16875 PG, 455 dps, 33km optimal range Tempest with 6x 1400mm T2 19305/19375 PG, 296 DPS, 30km optimal range - With 5x Hammerhead's T2 455 DPS Megathron with 7x 425mm T2 16537/19375 PG, 318 DPS, 36km optimal range - With 5x Ogre T2 635 DPS
Solostrom	Posted - 2009.04.21 16:37:00 - [630] 1) Salvaging wrecks doesn't cause agro 2) Salvaging wrecks doesn't cause agro 3) Salvaging wrecks doesn't cause agro Why this is unbalanced... A) If I am a trader I can be "PvPed" by others undercutting my prices. B) If I am a miner I can be "PvPed" by can flipping. C) If I am in low or nullsec I can be "PvPed" at anytime by anyone. D) If I feel like screwing around and doing a mish and someone comes along to salvage the wrecks... I can do absolutely nothing but watch. Counter-arguement... It is a Profession! Yes, often practiced by people in NPC corps that can't even be wardec'd. Fit a salvager on your ship! Yeah, doesn't work as the Salvagers are flying T1 frigates with AB, Overdrives, and a rack full of salvagers. Flying a HAC, BC, or BS there is no way to outrun them to the wrecks. Suicide Gank them... won't work as they operate only in the safest of hisec where concords response time is very quick. The second you lock them they warp out. If you do manage to lock you will be dokkened when you fire. As added bonus, now they get a free shot at killing you some other time when your flying a mishboat. There is no reasonable counter to this tactic/profession. If they want to practice it... make it involve risk to them. Not the totally lopsided risk to you only. This is the only profession where there is no counter. You nerfed Falcons, NOS, Nano, etc cause it was FOTM and had no reasonable counter!

Gon Freecss	Posted - 2009.04.21 16:40:00 - [631] 1) Wardec system in empire space is broken: Currently declaring war is so cheap, that it's like a pocket money for any old corp with 10+ members while they can lock into war even 1000+ member corporations/aliances for as long as they want. And that corp can't defend against it in an way. Than they can just fly around and look for mission runners or miners to grief and when a fleet is made to fight them they will just dock and wait for them to leave. There should be something that forces the corp, which declared the war to actually fight it no mater what. 2) Local Chat Channel visibility: Local Chat Channel should be permanently in recent speaker only mode. You wouldn't show in Local unless you actually speak in the channel. So no one would be able to tell right away who is in the system and what they are. Local channel should not be used for strategy planing. Also number of people in local should be removed. 3) Boost lasers or nerf projectiles: When I looked around for fittings for Punisher or Maller every second fitting on forums I found was with autocannons on it, same my friend with Myrmidon found out that projectile weapons are best for it and I'm sure there are more ships like that. Every fraction should be most proficient with their own weapon type. Projectiles should not be an answer for ships from other fractions than Minmatar. Lets compare more: Lasers use more power grid and more CPU, they have worst tracking of all guns, they use most capacitor of all guns while projectile use none at all. When Abaddon fire all his guns it will suck 1/6th of his Cap away and after about 2 mins its Cap is empty while projectile ships can fire whole day with no issues. And finally projectile can do any damage type, which makes them much more better and unpredictable for PVP, while lasers are stuck with EM/Thermal only.
Dathremar The Maverick Navy PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.21 17:33:00 - [632] Edited by: Dathremar on 21/04/2009 17:34:04 Top Three: 1) Minmatar Ships - Specifically Battleships, Caps and their weapons: Minmatar are severely lacking compared to the rest of the races when you look at Battleships to Cap ships. Projectiles need to be relooked at and must be retooled so that they are in line with other races. After the HP buffs much of the bonuses that Projectiles had have disappeared. We have no fleet ship to speak of. Naglfar and Nidhoggur are just plain awful. Naglfar's problems have been mentioned multiple times throughout this thread but I'll recap once again. You have to decide whether or not this ship is a shield/armor tanker or if it uses missiles or projectiles. This split system, versatility thing, just does not work out and turns the Nag into the worst Dread in the game. Nid is not as bad but it needs another low slot at the very least. It should be used primarily for logistics (at least according to its bonuses) but it has one of the worst tanks. It just does not make sense. 2) Sov Mechanics: The way sov works right now is just tedious and extremely hard for smaller entities to make a dent in 0.0. There are alliances in the game right now that have massive amounts of space that they almost never use or rarely use. The problem is that a smaller alliance could never be able to take on any large entity in the game right now. If the small alliance attacks a pos, even if none of the larger alliance members are within system, they will be notified that they are getting attacked. Not to mention that current mechanics make is so much easier for the defenders than the attackers. We are now starting to see a massive amount of sov 4 systems which make it even more difficult to attack (massive advantage goes to the defenders). Although I think it shouldn't be easy to take a sov 4 constellation we are now getting to the point that certain regions have almost all sov 4 constellations. The game is soon going to turn into a grindfest, even more than pos warfare already is, and lead to back and forth trench warfare. The system needs to be changed. Alliances should not be able to control such massive amounts of space with very little risk. I agree with many people that changing moon minerals or making them deplete would really add to the game and make 0.0 a little more dynamic. 3) Titans and Motherships: This one is not as big for me, but I still think both supercapitals need some reworking. Motherships right now are much more expensive than they are worth. Their price either needs to be dropped or they need to be reworked. As they currently stand they are not much better than the average carrier. Titans are another problem. The game now has over a hundred of them (probably more). They need to have a more flagship role, instead of: DD and hide. They are primarily used for two things: logistics and doomsday. Both of which make them extremely powerful and sometimes bordering on lame (they are not gamebreaking but more of a "man that could of been a good fight" breaker). I would almost like to see them as a floating station. Make them a massive force on the battlefield that people will put on the field of battle to turn things to their favor. I'm not exactly sure how one would go about that but I know right now their use is quite the opposite of what is shown in the videos. They should be on the field fighting along side everyone else.
Fivefold Forgefire GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.21 17:41:00 - [633] 1. Hi-Sec Lvl 4 Missions: they either need to get moved to low-sec or be balanced so there's a risk compatible with the rewards they give. Maybe use the sleeper AI for them? 2. Rockets: are a completely useless weapon platform right now, kinda telling how the most anyone will use them for is the last high-slot in rifters, how every malediction pilot uses standard missiles or vengeances work much better with ACs... They need at least a 50% damage boost to be viable. 3. Non-ECM E-War: needs a boost, ECM with the latest changes is balanced, it's just that the other forms of electronic warfare are so overnerfed there's almost no reason to use them. There's no solid explanation as for how can you effectively snipe with ECM, which basically completely disables a ship, and not use TDs or RSDs from the same distance, considering those are not as devastating as ECM.
Jonathan Calvert Minmatar Empire Mining and Trade	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:02:00 - [634] Remember, we are talking about balance here, not just whats broken. Fairness and stability. My top 3 would be: 1. L4 missions - too much isk for too little work, too much competition for miners. minerals should come from mining, not from reprocessing 2. ore values - veld is too common and too valuable, and every other ore but 0.0 is worthless. lo sec should at least have ore worth more than hi sec to make it worth going 3. invulnerability, anonymity and disposable quality of npc corps - too many scammers, spies, scouts, gankers with no consequences for their actions - people in npc corps should be limited in their ability to create contracts, etc, and individuals should be able to leave npc corp for no corp and be individualy war decd. and or fix bounty system so this can used to kill people in hi sec
Drakoulia Caldari The Night Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:07:00 - [635] 1.) War dec/0.0 warfare both need looking into.(Diff things but similar enough to put in same button.) 2.) Local chat... Seriously? 3.) The bounty system needs some looking into. Possibly with locator agents? --- Originally by: The Mittani Don't touch that! Don't open the refrigerator! The spy is in the refrigerator!
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:14:00 - [636] 1. Active shield tanking bonuses need to be boosted to be in line with buffer tanking. Make it a viable option, not an impossible task. 2. Minmatar ships need significant sig radius reductions. No real way to speed tank unless you are in a interceptor. 3. Large arty's, 10 round clip is annoying as hell and makes the ship worthless FFS. SEE: Tempest, Mael, Phoon, etc. The medium arty's are stupidly PG hungry for ships that don't have alot of powergrid to begin with. Same with smalls. Stop, hammer time.
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:21:00 - [637] Wreck looting in Empire If you engage someone in the empire, a swarm of looters surrounds the target which will pop to grab your loot. Lock the loot to the gang or pilot for 1 minute. This prevents neutral players from taking the reward of others. Wildfire - New Horizons
Murashu Agony's End	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:48:00 - [638] o Rockets need to do more DPS. o Assault frigs need a boost (Hawk) o EWAR - no other form of EWAR compares to the effectiveness of ECM jammers. Murashu Agony's End
Thercon Jair Minmatar Nex Exercitus Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.21 18:54:00 - [639] 1. introduce a falloff bonus and/or script to tracking enhancers and tracking computers. Thus bringing it inline with tracking disruptors, who can affect both attributes, and also helping Minmatar AC and Artillery setups gaining their "racial range", and being able to compete better with other weapon types (as obviously, optimal heavy weapon systems gain more range by using optimal range modules than those with short ranges and more falloff). The Vargur would receive a buff with this too ;) 2. I believe AFs have become much better with the current changes, yet they still lack a bonus as compared to other T2 hulls. It would be nice to see a bonus introduced that helps them in their current role. 3. concerning artillery, it would be nice if artillery again had a distinguishable (nothing insanely big here) larger alpha-volley damage than other weapon systems. It's not that I ask for much more DPS, rof could be increased a little to compensate. But right now an Abbaddon can have a bigger volley damage than a Maelstrom, which isn't much backstory-like. Together with the falloff bonus from my first gripe it could help making artillery more appreciated by their users. Real men do it the hard way: fly Minmatar!
Mr Adebisi GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.21 19:00:00 - [640] Edited by: Mr Adebisi on 21/04/2009 19:01:07 1) Risk vs reward of 0.0 isk generation: As it is right now, only farmers who have macro's set up are in a position to generate income in 0.0 reliably and safely. I'm not in favor of making it harder for roaming gang's to find and kill miners/ratters, but make it more lucrative to the miners and ratters so that there is some reason to try and earn isk in 0.0 as opposed to running missions in empire. The missions in NPC 0.0 are no more lucrative than doing it in high sec to farm up lp. Likewise, trying to mine in 0.0 can be a difficult task in terms of avoiding your 100m isk hulk dieing to rat spawns or gankers for the amount of isk you are making. There are very few 0.0 systems where the top ABC ores will even spawn, and then you will have to worry about refining the ores and getting them a suitable market. My suggestion would be to either nerf the viability of high sec level 4 missions, or improve the profitability of 0.0 isk generation. 2) Small gang pvp: This is a tough problem that I'm not sure how to resolve. As it stands right now, it can be very difficult for small gang pvp to occur without log on traps or other deception as most gangs will not engage eachother unless the terms of the engagement are favorable. I'm not sure how to resolve this, maybe with changes in insurance pay outs for tech 2 hulls or changing session timer/aggression mechanics. Hopefully the falcon nerf can help this quite a bit as well. 3) Make the game less tedious: Doing things like setting up or taking down pos's take an absurd amount of time, and when you have an entire alliance full of pos's being fuelled by a handful of people, its amazing anyone even holds sov in an entire region. On top of having to click buttons for hours to set up and manage pos's, there are also countless hours being spent hauling fuel, moon materials, ship hulls, and minerals (compressed or otherwise) from empire to 0.0 space. If there can be anything done to streamline this activity to make 0.0 production and other economic behavior more viable, it would probably stop many eve players from burning out trying to keep up with all this.

Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 19:08:00 - [641] 1.) Current sov mechanics (known issue). 2.) Crowded high sec with rich pilots vs. empty lowsec / 0.0 with poor pilots (known issue). 3.) Too much race balancing. Let races have their strengths. Stop trying to make all races equal (damage, tanking, ranges, alpha whatever etc.). People should have a reason / benefit from crosstraining.
Hatt0ri Hanz0 Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.04.21 21:28:00 - [642] 1. t2 ammo. Most of it sucks and is never used anymore. 2. blaster boats. need buffed 3. destroyers. make em useful.
Kralin Ignatov Mentis Fidelis Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.21 22:54:00 - [643] 1. Mimmi capitals. Make the Naglfail use artillery and only artillery. 2. Phobos, Arazu, and Onieros are weak compared to their Caldari, Mimmi, or Amarr counterparts 3. POS spam mechanics, but that is a major overhaul
RahSun Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.21 23:31:00 - [644] Edited by: RahSun on 21/04/2009 23:31:14 1. Revamp POS towers/sov tied to them. Fix their fuel (combine the NPC fuels into 1 item), fix anchoring time (I love playing EVE != another 6 hours of anchoring POS mods), and untie them from sov claiming. 2. Corp tools. Make the corp interfaces for officers easier and more user friendly. 3. High sec needs more trit and less access to zydrine/megacyte. Fix high sec mining for more trit production (it shouldn't be more profitable to mine veldspar than it is to mine omber for example) and decrease the amount of mega/zyd dropped in the loot tables for l4 missions.
Cors It's A Trap	Posted - 2009.04.22 02:22:00 - [645] 1 Capitals(Carriers/Dreads) too easy to kill unless in Siege/Triage mode. They're capital class ships. They should be a LOT more durable then BS's. Make more of a size difference between the ship classes. Make it so that a Frigate does next to no damage to a Capital. And a Capital does no damage to a frig. Make BS's the only class that does damage to both. Low damage to Frigs, low damage to caps. This would cause capital battles to be mainly capital battles, and BS battles to be BS battles, and Frig/Cruiser battles to be Frig/Cruiser battles. This gives more play potential to everyone regardless of skill level. 2 Lvl 4 missions vs lowsec/0.0. The fact is, that lvl 4 missions are fine. They'll make a player between 20 and 40 mil an hour if they use everything at their disposal. But lowsec/0.0 is HORRIBLY underpar. 0.0 Rats should be a LOT more rewarding. All 0.0 Rats should be BS's. The better systems should have 4-8 BS rats per spawn. Not the 1-3 max you get now. The simple fact is that if 0.0 was more rewarding for the individual, you'd see more people out there. It would benefit EVERYONE from the lowly ratter to the corp, to the alliance to the pirate to the hauler to the producer to see folks move to 0.0 for solo isk income. We'd see more ships/mods/ammo/skills/everything moved to 0.0. We'd see more loot from 0.0 being refined in 0.0 and turned into ships. 3 Mining. 0.0 should have NO low end ores. Highsec should have NO highsec ores. If you changed this there would be greater movement of mins. Movement means chance for losses. MOvement means more tradeing. This would cause 0.0 alliance's to either import mins, or to rely on reprocessed loot. Give 0.0 alliance's a REASON to put up more Outposts. Give them a REASON to have people in 0.0. ATM I make my isk from building ships. I buy the mins, build the components, build the ships. I live in 0.0 soley for the PVP. NOT for the isk earning oportunities.
Miyamoto Isoruku Caldari Noir.	Posted - 2009.04.22 02:47:00 - [646] 1: T2 Ammo. 2: The 0.0 Pos/Sov grind--it's awful. 3: Active Shield Tanking Please resize your sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 - Mitnal
Arc Reven	Posted - 2009.04.22 07:12:00 - [647] 1. Local chat should be like W-Space chat. 2. PvP has become increasingly less accessible unless you're ganking or in a major corporation, this needs to change. 3. More interactivity.
dankness420	Posted - 2009.04.22 07:22:00 - [648] 1. minmatar large guns! they need a boost. make the ammo capacity much higher, make them have longer range and better tracking. they should be weaker then hybrid weapons but have other advantages. 2. the naglfar needs more cpu. also the 3/3 slot weapon system sounds cool. 3. make the midend ores worth more ... 4. add more destroyers~!
King Rothgar Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.22 08:29:00 - [649] 1) Projectile weapons: No cap usage is fine and even fighting in falloff under virtually all circumstances is fine as it has some advantages but they need a lot more damage. +25% damage bonus across the board for all projectiles is what I recommend. 2) Short range T2 ammo: other than hail which is of very limited use (ie killing a carrier with a hurricane), it's worthless. It does nearly equal damage to navy ammo and suffers crippling drawbacks. Either needs massive damage boost (ie +200% damage) or drawbacks removed entirely and a little extra damage (10% over faction maybe). T2 ammo should be outright superior to faction or provide a unique ability given the ease and relative low cost of faction ammo. 3) Minmatar ships: They need a general overhaul, either they need to be significantly faster than other races or their other stats need to be brought up. Split weapons are also complete fail and need to be looked at. The hurricane needs 7 turrets and the cyclone 6 to bring it in line with other races, you can always leave the option of fitting missiles instead but it shouldn't be mandated. Some ships need bonuses looked at again like the minmatar dread and typhoon. Both these ships basically suffer from only 1 ship bonus rather than the standard 2 as they get the same bonus to two different weapon systems. They need to be either missile or gun boats, splitting them in half cripples them in their intended role. 4) I know this is one too many, but high sec lvl4 missions need a complete overhaul. There is far too much reward for so little risk with them. The loot from them destroys mining as a profession and it makes low sec horribly unappealing for most because there is little reason to go there. I recommend removing lvl4 agents from high sec and moving them all to low sec. Module drops also need to be reduced and perhaps more ammo should drop in its place.
Mad Ilya eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.22 08:54:00 - [650] 1) Minmatar overhaul - Small tweaks/buffs here and there, basically give "the versatility" an edge - Give Minmatar a proper snipe BS (boost arty optimal a bit - 10km or so fully fitted, maybe buff volley damage a bit, keep rof the same, better targeting range for tempest) - Give phoon one more turret slot or even 5/5 - Get capitals inline with other caps and training effort of dual weapons/tanking 2) SOV etc - Increase the difficulty of keeping sov thus giving more options for smaller entities to control space - Give jump bridges pure logistical role by adding a "calibration timer" etc which makes bigger fleets to move through slowly - Something to discourage big napfests and blobbing(?) 3) Titans - Halve the DD damage but allow firing every 30 mins thus exposing them more on the field (or something along the lines) - Make their usage to require more caretaking to discourage their use as party spoilers - Bumping (for all caps really)! Fix bumping so that the friendly titan/cap doesn't get bumped by a BS by 100km. It's lots of lols but quite unrealistic eh.

Tamahra 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.04.22 09:00:00 - [651] Edited by: Tamahra on 22/04/2009 09:01:06 Originally by: Arc Reven 1. Local chat should be like W-Space chat. wut? can you please elaborate, why? First you write that local chat should be w-space like and then you write that pvp has become increasingly less accessible.... with local chat being like w-space chat in low sec, pvp would really become less accessible for many Originally by: Arc Reven 2. PvP has become increasingly less accessible unless you're ganking or in a major corporation, this needs to change. wut? why? pvp (and especially solo pvp) has even become far more accessible with w-space being introduced. Not because there is delayed chat, but rather because of the way wh-space itself is designed Originally by: Arc Reven 3. More interactivity. um? what do you mean with that?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.22 09:37:00 - [652] Originally by: Tamahra Edited by: Tamahra on 22/04/2009 09:01:06 Originally by: Arc Reven 1. Local chat should be like W-Space chat. wut? can you please elaborate, why? First you write that local chat should be w-space like and then you write that pvp has become increasingly less accessible.... with local chat being like w-space chat in low sec, pvp would really become less accessible for many Originally by: Arc Reven 2. PvP has become increasingly less accessible unless you're ganking or in a major corporation, this needs to change. wut? why? pvp (and especially solo pvp) has even become far more accessible with w-space being introduced. Not because there is delayed chat, but rather because of the way wh-space itself is designed Originally by: Arc Reven 3. More interactivity. um? what do you mean with that? Not a discussion thread... Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
JanSVK	Posted - 2009.04.22 10:01:00 - [653] 1, less luck, chance based stuff. Invention, Reverse engineering, ect .. 2, Make 0.0 more rewarding by bigger, stronger or more NPC with more bounty or better loot compared to hi-sec. Better Ore to get low end minerals compared to hi-sec. 3, Low-end vs high-end Ore/Minerals rebalancing. As it is now, Tritanium is more expensive then Pyrite and 1m3 of Veldspar is more valuable then 1m3 every ore up to Hedbergite. Possible solution: Create high end ore containing large quantyty of low end minerals to get the tritanium prices back where they belong.
MarKand Wasteland Explorers	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:06:00 - [654] 1. Matar - All above BC we suck. Especialy looking on Capitals, not to mention the bonus for the Rag, sigrad isnt really a bigdeal with Caps/BS. 2. Matar - Split weapon systems, but no bonuses for split weapons. It should be 4 bonuses were there are 2 today, as in rof+dmg for missiles + rof+dmg for guns. Dont really see the point why we have to train dual and tripple systems if we never should reap the benefits. 3. Matar - When we run missions we face a lot of Angels, all other face their counterpart, that have 2 specified hardners, Angels do all kind of dmg, add to that we have some of the weakest tanks, regarding slotlayot etc. It really would be nice if you consider giving Matar some love, I do believe the birth of memes as Mighy Ajust Train Another Race and the saying that Matar is EVE in expertmode reaaly should say alot. I takes a really long time to get "good" in Matar ships, but there is no real reward at the end of that road. Instead many Matar pilots as my self, start to crosstrain into Caldari and Gallente, since both droneskills and missile skills are required for Matar ships. /MarKand
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.22 12:14:00 - [655] So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads?

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.22 12:44:00 - [656] Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.22 12:52:00 - [657] poor Nozh having to go through 22 pages... :P
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.04.22 13:37:00 - [658] Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/04/2009 13:40:04 1) Low-sec vs High-sec ores - Low-sec ores are half the value at the moment, needs fixing. In line of this, High-sec vs 0.0/lowsec income scales (always enough missions) but income such as ratting does not, as not more rats or plexes or whatever spawn based on the amounts of players. I think L4 missions are fine, but there need to be more income sources in 0.0 and low-sec that makes players want and able to live there. 2) Large turrets not being able to hit sh!t at close range, even if your target is webbed it goes miss miss miss, because transversal increases non-linear as distance decreases. Blasters went to hell as soon as the 90% web was removed, and the web bonus on marauders was intended for them to be able to shoot frigs according to the devs, now they can't, useless bonus. 3) Factional warfare, needs rewards now!
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.22 13:49:00 - [659] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day Awesome
Lord Wing Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.22 14:09:00 - [660] 1. Motherships - give them a reason / role 2. SOV warefare - This surely wasnt the epic grind you intedned when you invisioned it? 3. 0.0 vs Highsec - risk/reward very screwed.

Jarne Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.04.22 14:21:00 - [661] 1.) Sovereignty - make it somehow like FW, but with a constant need to do those "complexes" or whatever it will be. Just replace ratting with this and you won't have any additional work for those that really want to own the space. Right now it's about fueling POSes and apart from that leaving the space abandoned... Space should be owned by those who USE it not by those who fuel some POSes and have a big cap fleet to defend them 2.) Local - just remove it, add cloaked ships to the scanner (e.g., "something cloaked") and give a means to scan down cloaked ships 3.) Aggression timers for docking/jumping - these should be based on the ship size; the fact that a capital ship only has to wait one minute to dock after aggressing only necessitates blobbing - Success=Achievements/Expectations
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.04.22 14:36:00 - [662] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day I can't believe he is still reading. I know I stopped around page 11.
Hurricane Carter 0ccam's Razor Nexus-Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.22 14:55:00 - [663] 1) Minmatar Cap ships (Naglfar and Nidhoggur could use a buff in particular, Hel and Ragnarok seem fine) 2) Minmatar Guns, especially Battleship sized ones. (buff) 3) Caldari's "SOLO-Ability" and their generally usefull(read: used) ships. not a lot of caldari ships are worth using unlike for instance Minmatar ships (cruiser & below) and gallente or amarr (any other race then caldari that is). Some way to make Caldari's more solo-viable would greatly help
Kimura Masahiko	Posted - 2009.04.22 15:31:00 - [664] Edited by: Kimura Masahiko on 22/04/2009 15:33:15 Edited by: Kimura Masahiko on 22/04/2009 15:31:58 1) Restore the Risk/Reward balance between Hi-sec, Low-sec and Null-sec: Currently 95% of people in lowsec are Pirates, Factional Warfare Players, and inexperienced players who are about to get ganked. There is zero reason to leave Hi-sec to make isk with L4 missions available to grind away at 23/7. Revitalise Low-sec by making it more rewarding, balancing out the constant risk of being ganked. 2) Give Assault Frigates a 4th Bonus: They are out of line with all other T2 ships, and in need of a boost. Try and come up with an effective fit for a Vengeance or Hawk, or hit another frigate in a tight orbit in a Wolf or Jag, without laughing/crying. 3) Fix Rockets: They are completely underpowered relative to the other close-range/high-damage weapon systems, with very high fitting requirements. On top of this, the explosion velocity makes it almost impossible to bring their puny dps to bear on frigate sized ships.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.22 15:49:00 - [665] Come on Nozh .. i am F5 ing this forum like mad in antecipation for the discussion threads :)
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.22 15:52:00 - [666] Originally by: Seishi Maru Come on Nozh .. i am F5 ing this forum like mad in antecipation for the discussion threads :) I wonder if Nozh is based in Iceland or US... we've got a long wait if hes on US time.
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.22 15:59:00 - [667] If we keep adding top3s we will wait forever ^^
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.22 16:49:00 - [668] ALL HAIL THE PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF EVE TOP 3 TOP 3 TOP 3
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.22 16:54:00 - [669] Should be top 4 or 5 given the number of popular issues. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:10:00 - [670] Brace for epic rage threads when whatever important issue is completely ignored. (I know mine will be )

Clueless Alt	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:26:00 - [671] Originally by: Seishi Maru Come on Nozh .. i am F5 ing this forum like mad in antecipation for the discussion threads :)
Frater Sen	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:41:00 - [672] I have to write a bit more about low sec. My experience with servers, where Players vs. Players (speak: everybody vs. everybody) was enabled, without any safe zones to level/grind some money, exactly those servers were after a short time empty. Daoc for example: Starting with 5K players trying to log in and play every evening - ending after 3 months with 300 up to 600 players at weekends during peak times... and a quit chunk of those players were buffbots on second accounts. I had a good time, because I was in an organised guild wich leveled fast and farmed all the "carebears" on their favourite farming spots. Hmm, maybe it had been a lot wiser not to beat up every low level for giggles... after a short time, players left the server fast. Low sec isnt so far away from exactly this situation and I donÆt think, that the hope of some PKs will be satisfied. To speak bluntly: Moving Agents to low sec, reducing rewards and loyality points will not get pirates more victims to kill. Players will stay in high sec, because they are tired of killed by random PKs. The fun for the PK is the loss of ISK and countless hours of farming for somebody else. There are players behind the toon and a lot of those donÆt enjoy to be a victim and they dont think its fun to loose their ship and implants. The problem with missioning in low sec is: PKs can choose a fight with PvP fitted ships against PvE players with pve fitted ships. That isnt a fight with a realistic win chance for the pve player, never.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:52:00 - [673] 1. minmatar capitals. 2. ECM and ECCM (the entire mechanic needs revamping) 3. risk / reward of lvl 4 missions in highsec
Ral K'Daro	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:54:00 - [674] 1. ECM issues - falcon 'nerf' did not fix 2. minmatar capitals - dozens of issues 3. risk / reward in highsec, lowsec, and nullsec. adding rat bs to lowsec was a good addition, but money-making in highsec is just as profitable and infinitely more safe.
Verloc Nostromo Black Mesa	Posted - 2009.04.22 18:00:00 - [675] 1: Citadel Torps, i would love to be able to hit a target before its already dead or actually do damage when i do hit anything moving. 2: Blasters, yea i think we all know whats wrong there. 3: Destroyers, make em useful.
Daemonspirit Redhawk Tribal Trust	Posted - 2009.04.22 18:27:00 - [676] Edited by: Daemonspirit on 22/04/2009 18:28:05 I would like to see more ways into : 1. 0.0 - more NPC space. Less Drone space? Sleeper spawned 0.0 space that can't be claimed? 2. Industrial/mining/Research/Invention encouragement to Low-Sec: - (If there is more reason to go there, and rewards are hi-enough, Industrialists/researchers/inventors will go - taking PVP wings with them... Increasing low-sec population, and spreading out players - Spreading out players decreases risk for those averse to risk, w/o REMOVING risk...) 3. OVERHAUL CORP/POS MECHANICS - the interface sux!: Comments: (T-1 loot removed from missions?, Decrease Hi-end minerals from Reprocessing? ((IE - TWEAK, NOT SLEDGEHAMMER!)), Increase % bonus for research/invention/Manufacturing in Low-sec, because we know all those station managers know Stations are easier to control when the population is employed... (If there is more reason to go there, and rewards are hi-enough, Industrialists/researchers/inventors will go - taking PVP wings with them... Increasing low-sec population, and spreading out players - Spreading out players decreases risk for those averse to risk, w/o REMOVING risk...) BONUS IDEA (Blatently plagerized from Ruze!): Low Sec Missions: Increase % rewards from LP/Standings/isk - Change missions from "warp in - static fight in one area" to "Warp to site, kill 3-5 enemies (sleeper AI?), then warp to another area, kill 3-5 enemies, so that Mission Runners aren't tied to one area (i.e. - so easy to scan down and kill) tl;dr - move missioners around systems so that risk of running lvl 4's in low-sec does not outweigh any possible gains. Thanks for listening... ;)
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.22 18:31:00 - [677] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day Oh N0zh!! The end is nigh! The end is nigh! Fantastic news.... I'll get the arguments and flame suits out. :) -Liang
Onnen Mentar Murientor Tribe	Posted - 2009.04.22 19:08:00 - [678] Not so much an imbalance top 3 as a "things that annoy me the most in eve" top 3. Hope it's useful anyway. 1) ships unable to fulfill their main role or with major oddities (hyena, dramiel and many others..); frankly instead of asking for a top 3 it would be very useful to go through all the ship classes and ask people's opinions on a ship class by ship class basis, hopefully once and for all identifying ships with major oddities and banning those from the game once and for all, giving everyone more viable options. 2) nonsense game mechanics/modules 3) armor tanks/shield tanks (passive tanks/active tanks); at the very least reduce cpu requirements of remote shield transporters (adjust minmatar/caldari logistics cpu in response of course)
Murashu Agony's End	Posted - 2009.04.22 19:16:00 - [679] Originally by: Beverly Sparks I can't believe he is still reading. I know I stopped around page 11. Hopefully this turns out better than the "we are listening, we just don't agree" method they used on the SB's.
Vertical Axis	Posted - 2009.04.22 20:04:00 - [680] 1. minmatar capitals 2. pos interface (not a balancing issue, but more of a omgthisisawfulUI) 3. ecm

Vitrael Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.04.22 20:25:00 - [681] Edited by: Vitrael on 22/04/2009 20:29:35 1. ECM: Still insanely overpowered and a necessity to every gang, even with Falcons being heavily nerfed. Please change ECCM such that it makes you immune to ECM, I don't like fitting a dedicated module to counter an all-dominating Ewar type and still getting jammed all the time. Otherwise decrease ECM strength across the board. ECM drones need their strength drastically reduced as it seems they have become defacto insta-win in small engagements. 2. Large Projectiles: poor damage, poor range, generally outclassed at every distance by other weapons. Autocannons need a bit more optimal or dps and Artillery need more ammunition capacity (1400s = 10 shots of tremor/emp) and alpha or DPS. Otherwise, making it so that we can select damage types with ammunition without losing a huge portion of DPS would be nice. I don't think the "no cap need" presently makes them viable. Medium projectiles and small seem to do alright though. 3. Citadel Torpedos: extremely poor explosion velocity in siege limits usefulness, even carriers can "speed tank" Naglfars and Phoenixes by moving at over 20m/s. Need improved missile flight speed (if at the cost of flight time) and vastly improved explosion velocity or DRF. Quote: 2) Rockets: They are simply broken. If I had a #4 it would be to re-assess all missiles in general. Since the introduction of HAMs and Torpedos, rockets have been made to look silly. Very short range, very low DPS, generally not useful compared to standard missiles. It would be nice if they were a bit more like the new HAMs and Torps as a small counterpart rather than as a black sheep that no one fits (even on Maledictions). Assault launchers could use a pretty significant ROF buff as well. -----
David Caldera Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence	Posted - 2009.04.22 20:36:00 - [682] [1] Highsec L4 missions: I understand everyone likes to do what they want, heck, I'm a mission-runner myself mainly, but it makes no sense that hourly ISK gain is so high and secure when running L4, compared to other activities. It is now no longer a matter of choice if you want to gain ISK; if you want a playerless secure "easy" and arguably best way to get it, L4 is the only way. This leads to many other activities in EVE not being practised by enough players, nearly making them obsolete. Low-sec as a general being the worst victim. I am not suggesting L4 needs to be nerfed, but it needs to get in line with the other activities when it comes to risk and reward. [2] Blasterboats: The tracking needs to be looked at. Blasters are a bit underpowered now. [3] Factional Warfare: Not enough reason to go PvP and suffer the Factional standing losses with the current rewards. David Caldera
ChowMung GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.22 21:20:00 - [683] 1) Nerf L4s. 2) Lowsec needs to be made somewhat attractive. 3) Blasters deserve a long-overdue buff.
Digital Anarchist Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.22 21:54:00 - [684] Blasterships could use a little love. ------------------------ This space for rent
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.04.22 22:35:00 - [685] Edited by: isdisco3 on 22/04/2009 22:37:24 Well, I'm a glutton for punishment, so I counted the first 13 pages of this thread. I stopped there because its time to get beer, pizza, and watch hockey. As a disclaimer, I grouped several complaints together. Complaints about "boost damps!" were included with "non-ECM ewar sucks!" and "webs are horribly nerfed." This is because I view them as part of the same problem. For the same reason, anything related to minmatar projectile turrets were included in one category, all issues relating to t2 ammo were in the same category, and all complaints about minmatar ships (which were by far the most common) are in one category. Here's all votes that I saw getting 15 or more votes in the first 13 pages. 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 4. blasters - 61 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 6. rockets - 31 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20 11. titans - 18 12. assault ships - 17 13. pos setup and logistics - 16 please quote this or whatever if you find it useful, i would not want the summary to get lost in the middle of page 23 (as it is now!). i tried to be fair in the summary, i'm sure some toes are being stepped on by grouping things together.
The Kan Gallente The Circle	Posted - 2009.04.23 00:37:00 - [686] - Blasters. They rly need a bit more damage and some serious tracking boost. - Supercaps. They are supposed to be "super" but they are not. A mothership dies too quickly, same goes for titan. Some sort of boost to tanking on motherships/titans should happen. armor repper/shield booster HP amount bonus maybe? also a armor/shield HP boost (+50% at least) for the price they cost, atm they are just a coffin. - Railguns - they need more alpha. they are subpar
Tob Seayours Minmatar Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.04.23 01:15:00 - [687] Edited by: Tob Seayours on 23/04/2009 01:20:38 whistles innocently
Handon Guild The Glenn Quagmire Finishing School for Young Ladies	Posted - 2009.04.23 02:20:00 - [688] 1 ECM / ECCM needs a revamp imo, ECM is still way to overpowered as it is now, it really ruin good fights when a falcon warp in and perma jam 3-4 targets -.- its not even funny. " the new patch did NOT fix it " 2 ...... 3 Profit!
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.04.23 03:48:00 - [689] Originally by: Murashu Originally by: Beverly Sparks I can't believe he is still reading. I know I stopped around page 11. Hopefully this turns out better than the "we are listening, we just don't agree" method they used on the SB's. Could go the way it did when I and several others said that the massive scripting nerf to sensor boosters and tracking computers would drastically affect minmatars role as snipers...
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.04.23 05:41:00 - [690] 1. Rocket damage 2. Rocket explosion velocity 3. Hawk & Vengeance (Those two assault ships have lower damage bonus than the Kestrel (T1 frig) and Crow (interceptor)!)

Beep BeepCLick	Posted - 2009.04.23 06:00:00 - [691] THis is a issue
Drad Lord	Posted - 2009.04.23 06:33:00 - [692] 1) Large Artillery - its a big broblem 2) Add to TC and TE falloff same as optimal 3) Tempest - increase PG and do 7th place for gun and remove one missile 4) minmatare's recons need increase web strenght
SDragoon	Posted - 2009.04.23 07:03:00 - [693] 1. Level 4s being too profitable 2. Low sec not very attractive for the risk. Give people an incentive to band together and defend themselves from pirates. 3. Ships with bonuses to multiple weapon types. I'm talking ships like the Lachesis and the Gila. A 5% bonus to hybrid and a 5% bonus to missile is effectively just a single 5% bonus. Not to mention it's a nightmare trying to stack damage mods for these ships as they need twice as many to get the same effective damage increase as a single weapon type ship. There is no real upside to multiple different weapon types and a myriad of downsides.
RedClaws Amarr Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.04.23 07:09:00 - [694] Edited by: RedClaws on 23/04/2009 07:09:06 1) Titans - Make the doomsday very expensive. - Make titans unable to be repaired/regenerated in any way except in a "drydock". - Drydock repair should take time and capital parts so that the damaged titan is "out of action" for a while after a failed attempt to destroy the ship. - Increase their HP by lots to rebalance for this feature. 2) Moons Awefull game mechanics. Rich get richer and poor get their asses handed to them. Needs a total remake. - The old "System Scanning Array" POS module can be remade into a "Moon Scanning Array". - A "Moon Scanning Array" needs to scan the moon surface before minerals can be mined. - Each day/hour/week the scanner will add a pile of random minerals to the "can be mined" list of the moon. - Once scanned these minerals can be mined by a moonminer. - More scanners will get you more minerals so your moonminer will never run out of minerals in case your scanner has a streak of bad luck. - Minerals detected by the "Moon Scanning Array" will be influenced by the system security (-1.0 being the best). This way an alliance can chose between building an outpost in the -1.0 with few moons which is easy to defend, or the -1.0 with lots of moon and higher profits at an increased risk/cost. 3) Small gang warfare Small gangs should be able to do some damage and steal some money from the enemy. - Disabling moon miners (and looting the last few hours) - Deactivating station services much more easily (not millions of HP) - Deactivating jumpbridges (not millions of HP) - ... Pretty much anything that allows a smaller alliance to cause mayham to a bigger alliance.
Lydia Brightlance Gallente V.O.C	Posted - 2009.04.23 08:27:00 - [695] 1. Sovereignty. The current system only keeps the big alliances in place and the universe static. It also encourages blob warfare. 2. Defender missiles and Ewar. I put defender missiles in with this since it seems to be the missile counter option as opposed to tracking disruption for guns. 3. CONCORD mechanics need good documentation. When are you flagged, when aren't you. What happens when people with different standings and different corporations remote repair, jam, help, oppose others.
Tiuwaz Minmatar No Paradise	Posted - 2009.04.23 09:09:00 - [696] 1) projectiles - artillery as a whole needs a rework - large acs need some sort of boost - there is no module to increase falloff as opposed to optimum while there does exist ew to reduce fallofff, thisis not balanced 2) minmatar BS and capitals - worst capitals of all espcially the naglfar needs work - weak BS line with little to no focus and role differentiation among them 3) Titans - boring and tedious gameplay once Titans are involved - remove insurance payouts from all Supercaps ___________________________________
Yukiko Matsuo The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.23 10:11:00 - [697] 1. Destroyer Not even rookies use them(expect dedicated salvaging) 2. Fleet Warfare Shooting at each other with a distance of 150km+ isnt fun, ships <BS cant compete, EWAR is more or less useless... Shorter distances, more useful ships, more dynamic. 3. T1 Mods, more or less the same as with destroyers. They are just used if no named modules are avaible..
1Of9 Gallente The Circle	Posted - 2009.04.23 10:23:00 - [698] - blasters (needs a boost) - supercaps (needs a massive boost) - jump clones (24hrs delay /o\)
D'Artagnan Bladerunners KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.23 14:05:00 - [699] Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 22/04/2009 22:37:24 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 4. blasters - 61 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 6. rockets - 31 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20 11. titans - 18 12. assault ships - 17 13. pos setup and logistics - 16 So according to this the first thing to get its discussion thread is issue number 9 What happened to the top 3 ?
MicroWarpdrive II Disorder. Shock Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.23 14:31:00 - [700] are you serious? you picked ecm drones as the top issue? what the ****.... seriously, if the naglfar and large projectiles don't get fixed this patch, im going to unsub.

Tyby Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.04.23 15:21:00 - [701] Quote: Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. sorry but what happened with TOP 3 list? why are the first problem that will be adressed "the number 9" one? i hope this thread is not some sort of "write what you think is unbalanced here, and we will look at what WE think it's unbalanced" like CCP had did before on many ocassions
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.23 15:34:00 - [702] Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 22/04/2009 22:37:24 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 4. blasters - 61 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 6. rockets - 31 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20 11. titans - 18 12. assault ships - 17 13. pos setup and logistics - 16 Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.04.23 15:44:00 - [703] ECM Drones? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.04.23 16:01:00 - [704] 1) Hi-sec lvl-4 missions should be a depletable resource, just like asteroids can get mined out, so can missions. Agents should sometimes say 'Sorry, got nothing for you here, maybe try agent ** in *'. Furthermore do something about mission loot to make mining viable of something other than Veldspar and Arkonor viable. 2) Ewar drones are rubbish, except for ECM drones, give them some love. 3) Make faction ships better (and maybe add some more, I'd love a sisters scanning frigate)
Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.04.23 16:15:00 - [705] Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 23/04/2009 16:27:11 1) frigates - missing some love It seems to me, frigates are the stepchilds of eve . Let me list some examples to outline my thoughts. - rocket "issue" . It's known for ages but nothing happens here. - AFs. Yes AF were changed and are somehow useful now, but it took (again) ages. Nozh, please be careful with AFs agility, after all they are frigates and need agility and speed to survive. - ECM balancing. Rook/Falcon got 30% ECM streght. Somebody forgot the Kitsune ? - T2 frigate prices. I will not use exact numbers but magnitudes to explain it. T1 to T2 frigate price ratio ~ 1:70 (Rifter vs. AF) T1 to T2 cruiser ratio ~ 1:19 (Rupture vs. HAC) T1 to T2 bs ratio ~ 1:11 (tier 2 BS vs. Marauder) T1 to T2 freighter ratio ~ 1:5x (freighter vs. jf) other comparison T2 frigate to T1 cruiser ~ 1:3 T2 cruiser to T1 BS ~ 1:1.34 T2 bs to T1 cap ~ 1:1 What's next ? A T2 Titan for a price of a T1 one ? Ok, just kidding but you can clearly see the point. T2 frigates are supposed to be the initial T2 ships for noobs and newcomers (?). The problem is, if a typical poor and unexperienced noob wants to upgrade from a Rifter to a Jag, he has pay 70 times the price. Why should he pay ? After a few (expensive) losses he will realize that a T1 cruiser offers a much more economic way to do PvP. After a while he will probably even end up in a bigger hull. I think prices between 5-10m would have a good impact on popularity of those fragile but funny ships. A possibility to push it this way could be a batch increase of T2 frigate BPCs and better ME numbers. - Why are there no T3 frigates ? Another "frigate=low priority" issue. My key points are: - frigates seems to have a very low priority on your agenda. - T2 frigate price tag seems very high compared with other ship classes. Nozh&friends, from the perpective of frigate pilot you did a great job in QR. QR really put some new life into this ship class. Carry on and thank you.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.04.23 16:56:00 - [706] 1. Rebalance Active Tanking vs. Passive Tanking. In PvP a Passive Tank is often far more useful then an active Tank. But things have come to the point were a passive (Shield) Tank is more useful then a Bonus for active Armor Repairers on a Ship. Tier 3 Gallente and Minmatar BS suffer from having received the "poor" tanking Bonus. Passive Tanking should at least be viable again in small Gangs. 2. The range of Blasters is a bit too short and the damage of Projectiles a bit too low, compared to Lasers. 3. Titans. A lot of people wrote about. But this thing is the ultimate stupidity in its current form. Remove the damn Doomsday and make it into a kind of Mobile Outpost with extra defense. But the DD is entirely wrong. Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.23 17:01:00 - [707] The faction ships deserves a new thread imo. A lot of us got some interesting ideas on how to fix them. I'd like to make a new 3 list based on the faction ships, but I guess it was meant to be one list per player ^^. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Casino Alkasar	Posted - 2009.04.23 17:06:00 - [708] 1 bring up forgotten things like: rockets, bombs, small & medium smartbombs etc 2 Think about the lame ol dock games, and the local as intell channel 3 Give some love to the drone interface(its so clunky it makes noises), and think about the gallente droneboats some more loveis needed also after eos and myrm got cut down. _________________ itze mine Rock¦n roll
Koniss	Posted - 2009.04.23 17:08:00 - [709] 1- CCP nerfs all around 2- projectile weapons 3- naglfar
Illwill Bill Svea Rike Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.23 18:59:00 - [710] 1) Artillery needs love. Larger clip sizes would allow long-term bombardment and increase the DPS as the reloads would have longer between them. The different ammo types are fine as they are, and changing them would give a boost to autocannons aswell. 2) Rockets are fairly useless in most situation. I like the previous ideas about increasing DPS while making the clip size smaller. While it is true that rockets are not intended as a primary weapons system, rockets should still have some short-term DPS, making them useful to provide that extra boom in close-range slug-fests or to save someone's arse, because that ceptor got a hailstorm coming his way. At the same time, ships with bonuses to rockets would become masters at hit'n run ops. They would be able to provide high DPS for small periods of time, allowing people to get in, kill, and then get out fast. 3) Destroyers are not really broken, although their current role is so seldom used that they have been reduced to salvagers. At best they are glass cannons; with good damage for their size, but still unable to survive an encounter with two or three interceptors, which is odd considering their anti-frigate role. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

Max Tux	Posted - 2009.04.23 20:39:00 - [711] Edited by: Max Tux on 23/04/2009 20:41:09 1) Rockets/citadel torps - sort out the explosion velocity, 2) Damage mods- why does a BCU unit require 10 more CPU than any other damage mod? especially considering its not like they boost the damage any more than other mods boost their respective weapons, its 10.5% ROF and 10% damage bonus on all 4 damage mod type 3) Shield transfer CPU usage - a tech 2 large remote armor rep uses 48tf, and 660MW, reasonable, - a tech 2 large shield transfer uses, 154tf, and 192MW, yes generally shield tanking ships have more CPU than Armor tanking ships, but comparing the Raven, and the Mega, 1 LRAR takes 4% ( no skills) of the Mega's grid and 8% of its CPU, in comparison: 1 LST takes 22% of the ravens CPU and 2% of its grid. Reduce the CPU requirement to bring it more inline and allow shield transfers to be fitted without needing to Gimp the fit. edit for readability
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2009.04.23 21:07:00 - [712] Edited by: zacuis on 23/04/2009 21:07:34 1 moon minerals. specifically the way too hi cost of dyspro and prom. i personally think u should rejig dyspros use in the complex reactions to make thulium and neodyspro used slightly more. 2 mining. my main concerns with mining are that finding velphar in large amounts shouldnt be an issue like it currently is system wide astroid belts or at least much large belts would go along way to fix this. also a lower trit price would go a long way to boosting hi end prices and making 0.0 worth the time again. also the fact that so many minerals come from missions is bs. u should remove t1 loot drops from missions in fact remove all mod drops would be better. 3 pos i generally like how pos work im sure im one of the few. what i do hate tho is building them. why oh why do u think taking 12 hours to put up a fully fit deathstar is fun for anyone. while i understand the needfor the time sink i think u should add a que system so u can say where u want everything then let the que handle the timers. also titans need a major rethink
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.23 21:16:00 - [713] Very few people care about ewar drones. It's an issue, but meh. Why are we starting at #9? You said "create a top 3 list" and then one of the least suggested ideas. I realize your guys' job is hard and I give you a lot of props for taking so much undeserved flak...but come on. If you ask for input and then choose the issue no one really cares that much about, you're going to get flamed and for good reason.
LordVodka Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.04.23 21:33:00 - [714] 1) T2 ammo (close range mainly) ever since the webs have been nerfed T2 ammo has basically become useless, tracking shouldn't be nerfed using it, or not nearly as much. 2) High sec lvl 4's basically.... move them all to low sec. 3) Agility vs. Scan resolution, ever since Agility was boosted in order to increase acceleration it's been incredibly hard to catch ships without using tons of sensor boosters and then you lose your web and they get away, anywho (in gatecamping situation). Therefor I believe Scan Resolution should be boosted across the board so that a Hac can catch a cruiser, a Bs can catch a BC/Cmd Ship, etc.
Mara Kell Steel Beasts Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.04.23 23:49:00 - [715] 1) Rockets need to be looked at, ships with rocket specific bonuses are doing abysmal low damage 2) Javelins T2 ammunition (rockets and HAMs) were turned useless with the missile reballance patch 3) Amarr Drones need a role, they are currently worse than other types in doing whatever
Gwen Khora	Posted - 2009.04.24 01:10:00 - [716] 1. ) Active tanking. Active shield tanking isn't seen all that much in pvp and it is much rarer in armor tanking than shield tanking. Reasons- I'll use battleship sized T2 mods for an example. Xlarge shield boosters boost 600 shield per 5 seconds while a large armor repair reps 800 every 11.25 seconds on unrigged setups. In other words (since I'm lazy and don't feel like using a calculator an X large shield booster will boost 1200 shield hp in 10 seconds, 400 more hitpoints 1.25 seconds less. Add in a shield boost amp and its 1632 in 10 seconds, twice the rate of the large armor rep and with 2 it does 2142 every 10 seconds. This makes dual reps on armor tanks the only viable option which takes too much fitting space in comparison to a few shield boost amps and xlarge booster to be viable in most setups. The lack of a shield boost amp like module for active armor tanking is a big problem with this and should be added with the rep amount and cycle time for armor reps to be more in line with the Xlarge shield boosters. 2.) T2 ammo, since the web nerf the short range T2 ammo needs loving as I see no reason to take T2 over faction ammo 3.) falcons and caldari recons in general, hybrid bonus on the falcon just sounds like ccp couldn't think of a useful bonus to give it so here is an idea, create a new form of ew to be in line with the other races that each have 2 forms of ewar that they can deploy while caldari have been reduced to 1 with 1 racial bonus. Personally i would like to see a tracking disruptor like module for missile users because it seems unbalanced that missile users face one less form of ew than turret based ships
Zaisen Abarai	Posted - 2009.04.24 04:39:00 - [717] Seriously now. 1. Large Artillery Cannons 2. Projectile Ammo 3. Minmatar BS + Minmatar bleeding. Minmatar revisited.
Gilbert T Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.24 04:58:00 - [718] First of all, let me start by saying that I think this whole "balancing" process is crap. It seems like you're on a mission to just make everything weak and effectively "dumb down" the game. But since you've started and can't be stopped, here is what you asked for: 1) Lasers are too strong. They have way more range and do way more damage than any other type of weapon. Coupled with the bonuses on Amarr ships for them and the tank bonuses on those ships, they just make the Amarr ships superior to all others in pretty much every way. I think the real problem is in the lasers, though. 2) Invention is basically screwed up. The chances on invention success for most cruisers and larger are too low, which makes the cost of making the BPC unreasonable to use them in manufacturing, and the existence of BPOs for most T2 items and ships makes it completely useless to do inventions on much of anything, since the costs of building from "invented" blueprints is 150% of that from an unresearched BPO. Allowing research on BPCs would probably fix that problem. Making it possible to "invent" faction/officer stuff would probably make it useful again, as well. 3) Fix insurance. The payouts should be based on market values, not material costs. The material cost method doesn't even make sense. Imagine if your house could only be insured for the cost of the raw materials that went into it, and none of the contents could be insured... Really we should be able to insure fittings as well as ships, but at the very least the payouts on ships should be realistic. *) The first thing wouldn't really be a problem except that all of the other ships are taking loads of nerfbat damage, leaving the laser wielding ships more powerful than the others. The other 2 are just major failures it seems. The invention was destroyed by the introduction of T2 BPOs if I understand it correctly, and I don't know if the insurance ever made sense for anything other than T1 ships. I hope to see all of this fixed soon!
Clueless Alt	Posted - 2009.04.24 11:30:00 - [719] Edited by: Clueless Alt on 24/04/2009 11:33:23 Originally by: isdisco3 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 4. blasters - 61 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 6. rockets - 31 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 10. types of tanking (passive vs armor vs shield vs hull) - 20 11. titans - 18 12. assault ships - 17 13. pos setup and logistics - 16 Quoting for new threads.
Amberle Vale	Posted - 2009.04.24 12:26:00 - [720] Greetings, 1. Battleship class missiles are getting a 50%+ DPS loss against ships in their intended class range, when said ship has an afterburner fit. Torpedoes and Cruise Missiles should be doing at least 80% of their damage against their intended targets regardless of the afterburner. - Torpedoes and Cruise Missiles need a buff against their intended targets. 2. Capital class missiles: carriers, dreads and titans are speed tanking Citadel torpedoes. This makes the phoenix strictly an installation attacker, which is out of alignment with the other dreads capabilities. - Citadel torpedoes need a buff, other capitals should not be able to speed tank them. 3. The Nighthawk could use a slight PG boost.

Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.24 12:44:00 - [721] Originally by: Gilbert T The invention was destroyed by the introduction of T2 BPOs if I understand it correctly, and I don't know if the insurance ever made sense for anything other than T1 ships. Other way around. T2 BPOs existed first. Invention was added because T2 BPOs were handed out on a lottery system. You couldn't buy them, couldn't find them, and couldn't make them. Instead everyone got put into a lottery, and whoever won the lottery, basically won Eve. They were a license to print money. So CCP put in invention, which allowed people without a T2 BPO to make items without one. They also removed the T2 BPO lottery, making all existing T2 BPOs nearly priceless, as they get a very large edge in price of manufacturing goods. There are lots of threads on the pros and cons of what CCP did with this, but the basic gist of them all is.. we're going to have to live with it. CCP pretty much admitted they messed up, but at the same time they can't completely remove the mistake without making a whole lot of people very very angry.
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.04.24 16:09:00 - [722] Edited by: Rip Striker on 24/04/2009 16:10:10 Originally by: Rip Striker Do not create posts which may distort or stretch the forum layout.-Applebabe Do not remove my messages. A simple cut would have sufficed if you found it too long. It wasn't my intention to distort or stretch the forum layout on purpose...was rather obvious imo. My original, though now cut message: EM drones? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.04.24 19:55:00 - [723] 1) Projectile issues, no real range differences between AC's within a class ( optimal means nada to AC), art clip sizes are smallish ( and who ever heard of varying ammo capacity when firing the same ammo size from a gun ). No positive falloff module ( note: MODULE) to boost AC range. 2) Destroyers need love on various subjects, overly large sig radius, no real fitting options, 1 mid slot ships etc etc, slow warp speed. 3) EW balance in general, ECM >> all other EW. RSD's are pants, even on RSD bonussed ships. The cap use was high when they where good, cap use is utterly ridiculous in their current nerfed format. TP's get hefty competition from webs on the ships that get a bonus to TP. TP also largely irrelevant at long ranges since tracking not usually the biggest issue at long range this dooms TP combined with TP's low optimal range....Have a new TP skill based module that lowers targets resistances (shield, armor, combined effect mod ? ). TD needs a seperate module to effect missiles. TD are fairly effective if you do encounter a Turret ship, but again ECM >> all EW, so why chance not being effective when you can just bring an ECM ship.
Relatyve Mynd	Posted - 2009.04.24 22:41:00 - [724] I wish there were just 3 issues, but these come to mind: 1. Naglfars need love (or citadel torps, as a start) 2. t1 loot needs to be a lot less common from rats/missions. 3. lvl4 highsec missions need to move to lowsec, as they were originally meant to be. Other issues would be along the lines of: --some artillery boosts (as not enough people use them now) --defender missiles (especially with torp bombers being more prevalent) --possibly a 4th AF bonus --the taranis (take out a drone or something, please!)
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:48:00 - [725] Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec.
Iron Grimblood	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:32:00 - [726] I just have one issue. Cruise and Torpedo launchers can be speed tanked by battleships which is entirely against mechanics of these ships. A torpedo should be able to hit a battleship without loss due to ship speed.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:37:00 - [727] Rockets = fail. Horrible damage output, horrible tracking. Cruise missiles = lol fail. Outclassed by T2 heavy missiles in every way... Except for its ridiculously long range, which shouldn't be anywhere near that anyway. Explosion radius mechanic = epic fail. A torpedo can do a MAXIMUM of 71% damage to an unpainted typhoon, the battleship it was designed to hit, thanks to the miserable failure that is missile tracking mechanics. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.
Onizuka GTO Caldari Macross crp.	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:57:00 - [728] Stealth Bombers, having the stealth propriety of a wet dog. Need a Signature decrease to be more in line with it's role, A interceptor has a better description and attributes of a true stealth ship, which is ironic, since they are the perfect counter to S.B. Torpedo are in the "unguided" category, yet they act exactly like guided counterpart. While guided are understandable affect when lock is broken, unguided should be unaffected and should hit a target regardless of a broken lock. Either you fix it, or at leased give use Fire and Forget torpedoes to compensate for this weakness of "guided" missiles. ==== Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death.Good Luck
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:30:00 - [729] /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along.
Wife's Anger	Posted - 2009.04.25 07:54:00 - [730] those who comlain about level 4 must be low sec pirates.

Terra Mikael SRIUS BISNIS	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:25:00 - [731] Edited by: Terra Mikael on 25/04/2009 08:29:57 1)Whining idiots who can't adapt and who whine on forums 2)People in CCP who read forums and view posters as anything but #1 3)The idea of 'balance,' because lets face it - if we were all balanced, this game would be WoW. Did I miss anything? ________________________________ Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:30:00 - [732] Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. YUP.. typical CCP. 1. Start a thread asking ppl what they want. 2. Wait a few days while ppl post. 3. Ignore everybody apart from the very few who mention what you were going to fix anyway.
Medidranda Livoga	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:48:00 - [733] Edited by: Medidranda Livoga on 25/04/2009 08:50:07 1. Discrepancy between remote shield transfering and remote armor repairers in fitting. Shield RR gangs should be just as viable as armor ones but currently it¦s not quite so except in light roaming / sniping gangs with scimitars. Biggest problem is extreme cpu costs of fitting transfer modules, most battleships are struggling to fit even one without fitting mod. Tempest is probably worst offender for a supposed(?) shield "tanker" it has terribad CPU. Also shield tanks are missing larges type of buffer module unlike armor tanks. If you add one do make sure we don¦t get comedy passive shields again though. :) 2. Rockets and some other missile types became almost useless. Minnie guns are somewhat lackluster and blasters are not doing so well in their normal engagement range after web nerf. 3. Do something for active tanking, currently resistance bonus on ship is total win vs repairer bonuses be those for remote reps or locals (carriers/BS etc).
Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.25 10:45:00 - [734] Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 25/04/2009 10:48:39 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 Players want a buff, no! 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 Didn't we just say no buffs! 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 Wait, thats a huge piece of rework, would take years to redo. 4. blasters - 61 UHG! They still haven't figured out we don't do buffs? 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 Okay, this just isn't funny anymore guys, it was cute at first, lets cut it out now. 6. rockets - 31 NO BUFFS! 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 Already looking at this, but its nowhere near ready for primetime.. need something to hold them off.. 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 Just make the buffs requests go away.. please just make them stop... 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 A NERF!!! YES!! WE CAN DO NERFS!!! And that is how they started on number 9. True story.
Corin Nebulon Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2009.04.25 11:00:00 - [735] 1. Level 4 missions in empire (zero risk, good profit) 2. Locked up pirate standings (Gurista, Sansha, Bloodraider) 3. Minmatar Capital ships
Smertrios Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 11:03:00 - [736] 1) Faction ships need to be looked at again. These ships cost a fortune but apart from looking cool offer few if any advantages over T2 (or even T1) counterparts. A faction BS for example should be death incarnate with significant extra DPS and fittings from regular T1 BS considering the extra risk in flying such an expensive ship. I don't feel resists should be altered, that's for T2 ships but you should have a lot more freedom in fitting a faction ship and the bonuses shoudl be better balanced. (would also be nice to see more Faction ships introduced as its been a long long time since we had any new ones!) 2)Projectile weapons - Artillery need looking at. They should have considerably bigger alpha after all the changes to HP on ships to make them effective again. DPS can stay the same as you would not expect Artillery to be a high DPS weapon but Alpha should be dramatically improved. All races could also do with a Tachyon equivalent as Tachyons seem to be an extra level up in terms of large, long range weapons. 3)T2 ammo - For the most part the penalties for T2 ammo are too extream for their benefits. The long range ammo is generally ok but short range needs looking at as it offers little benefit (and lots of draw backs) to faction ammo.
Onizuka GTO Caldari Macross crp.	Posted - 2009.04.25 11:36:00 - [737] Originally by: Halycon Gamma Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 25/04/2009 10:48:39 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 Players want a buff, no! 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 Didn't we just say no buffs! 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 Wait, thats a huge piece of rework, would take years to redo. 4. blasters - 61 UHG! They still haven't figured out we don't do buffs? 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 Okay, this just isn't funny anymore guys, it was cute at first, lets cut it out now. 6. rockets - 31 NO BUFFS! 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 Already looking at this, but its nowhere near ready for primetime.. need something to hold them off.. 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 Just make the buffs requests go away.. please just make them stop... 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 A NERF!!! YES!! WE CAN DO NERFS!!! And that is how they started on number 9. True story. LOL! ==== Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death.Good Luck
Rabid Markit	Posted - 2009.04.25 12:51:00 - [738] 1) ECM - Not really a complaint on ecm being too strong / too weak, just a suggestion: Give ecm modules a duration of 15 seconds but a cycle time of 20 seconds. That way you can't permajam with one module. Give t2 ecm ships (kitsune/falcon/rook/widow) a role bonus for +100% ecm duration so they have 30sec duration and 20sec cycle, but with reduced jammer strength. Permajamming one guy then becomes a bit of a waste, when you can keep 2 people jammed for 3/4 of the time instead. Less helpless feeling victims, more effective. Everybody wins! Then feel free to rebalance strength/range. Just thought this might result in a less 'binary' module that is either too powerful or too weak, depending solely on range and strength 2) Tier 3 Battleships - In fleet engagements (the place you would expect the main fleet battleships to shine), tier 3 battleships generally provide NO advantages above tier 2 battleships at a much greater cost, due to their weak/misaligned bonuses, the rohk being the exception, but only because the Raven is nearly useless for fleet warfare and the rohk has EXCELLENT bonuses. The only place the repping bonus of the Hype/Mael is really of use is in pve, and the Abaddon is somewhat useless simply because the Apoc is SO AWESOME. The problem is that the tier 2 battleships generally do more damage at the same or greater range, even though they usually have quite a bit less EHP and can fit one less gun. In addition, it is nearly impossible to make use of both the repping bonus and the damage bonus on long range guns as fitting big guns use up all your grid. Suggestion: Rework the bonuses of the tier 3 bs's. Give them all the 5% resist or the 10% optimal, then make each have a USEFUL racial second bonus like 5% damage, 7.5% cap use (amarr), 5% - 7.5% shield/armour hp, 10% - 15% falloff (minmatar). Maybe even a 5% bonus to grid/cpu/both, but hey, I'm just spitballing here. If you really feel like going extreme, give tier 3's the same role bonus as destroyers: +50% range, -25% Rate Of Fire. This frees up 2 bonuses for damage/tank. Also, feel free to rebalance their grid/cpu while you're at it.
Rabid Markit	Posted - 2009.04.25 12:54:00 - [739] Continued from last post... 3) Other Ewar - Damps, Painters and Tracking disruptors are currently seeing very limited use, even on Recons that get bonuses to them. I'm going to break down each of these and handle them seperately: Remote Sensor Dampeners (RSD) - Reducing someone's scan resolution is of no use if someone has already locked you, and by the time you've locked him to use the module, odds are he's already locked you too. The only place this would be of use is if the enemy have to rapidly change targets like in remote repping battleship blobs, but then increasing the lock time of one target is unlikely to have any significant impact on the outcome. The range dampening is weak, because one of a few things will happen, a) target still has enough lock range to hit you, b) target still has enough lock range to hit your friend tackling him, c) target has friends you aren't damping that can still easily hit you. Suggestion: Either switch falloff and optimal like was done with ecm, or completely change how RSD's work. Maybe an additional decrease in number of lockable targets with resolution damping scripts and a slight increase in range with range damping scripts. Target Painters - What bothers me most about these is they have the potential to be so COOL! The current problem is that getting in range to use a target painter is a big risk, with little apparent reward. So the target's sig radius goes up. Wooptidoo. 0 effect on any big ship (bs or greater), they are huge enough already for everything to do full damage. Minimal effect on smaller ships running circles around you, because your guns cant track anyway, no matter the sig radius and missiles, while dangerous, is also only slightly effected because the increase is a percentage! Missiles do enough damage against microwarping hacs. They do almost nothing to interceptors due to the tiny sig radius. But increasing that tiny sig radius by 50% has no real effect due to the sig radius still being small, especially not when your webs are outranging your target painter. (faction webs) Suggestion: Increase the range of painters a bit, like to, say, 60km optimal, 90km falloff. No point using them if optimal+falloff isn't even fleetfight range. In addition, make painters (or create a script for this) give a fixed 10/20m2 signiture radius increase before the mwd effect is applied. This means that if you are not running a microwarpdrive, a painter doesnt do much to you. 20m2 sig radius, yay. But if you are running a microwarpdrive... instant 100m2 bloom above your normally bloated sig radius. Death for an interceptor. Also, you can make a script for a target painter that takes away its sig radius bonus, but makes all turrets fired at the target get a 10% increase in optimal and tracking, like a tracking link used on the enemy, instead of allies. In fact, you can throw away all my other suggestions if you just want to use of the last one. This would make painters not only balanced, but cool. Tracking disruptors - These are being used to some degree, so I won't go into them too much. Their optimal is actually already pretty decent, so just an increase in falloff would be nice so they can actually be used to disrupt snipers. Also, maybe limited use against missiles? Maybe make them weaken flight time? Dunno, just an idea.
Rabid Markit	Posted - 2009.04.25 12:55:00 - [740] I'm on a roll here, so I'm going to go on to... 4) Defender missiles - I have never seen these used, except by NPC's. Either you're too close and missiles hit too quickly for them to work, or you are too far for missiles to be effective anyway. Possible solutions: Make defenders hit drones as well. Relatively crappy damage, but its better than nothing and requires no lock. - Give them a dedicated launcher, like a rocket launcher but with more capacity, possibly a cruiser/battleship module. Maybe make it not use up a launcher slot. - Let defenders act like fof missiles, hitting other ships if there are no missiles/drones about. Still crappy damage, but could be useful against a tackling ceptor. - Make defenders launchable from mid/low slot item for battleships. Dunno if the pilots would go for this, but I'm gonna throw it out there anyway. - Make defenders smarter. Allow them to be launched BEFORE missiles are launched against you and that they then just sit there using up their flight time until a valid target presents itself, then they zoom at it. Also don't know if this is even possible, but what the hell. Would make a good way of defending against missile volleys. - Make a bigger defender launcher fittable to battleships that launches multiple defenders, say 4, at once (in a group, unfortunately, so you can only hit a group of missiles, or one missile really really hard). Of course, not all of these should be implemented, but a combination of the the above suggestions is certainly a possibility.

Hlidskjalf Novus Aevum Transport and Industries Novus Aevum	Posted - 2009.04.25 14:48:00 - [741] 1 - ECM Mechanic - Too effective in respect to its use and compared to other e-war. Both drones and modules. 2 - Level 4's in Low Sec - Need a major boost in terms of different missions compared to high sec with much greater reward to promote interest in them (increased ISK, exclusive loot to these missions). Rather than simply increased LP rewards and a bit of ISK. 3 - Ship: Naglfar - 4 Weapons slots but zero specialisation in projectile. Leave the Torpedoes to the Caldari, give the Naglfar one less high slot, but make that 3rd weapon a turret, and change the bonses to reflect that. Tanking should perhaps reflect the Maelstrom. - - - - - - - - - What could possibly make me walk into your gate camp to get to low sec, unless my Retriever has a doomsday device on it...
Bazman Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.04.25 17:21:00 - [742] 1. AGGRESSION MECHANICS - Current aggression mechanics are allowing for way too much riskless, non-commital PVP to happen. The ability to deagress while remote repairing, or to undock a capital ship and engage and simply hump a station for a minute to redock when things don't go your way is too easy and not in the spirit of the EVE universe. Remote repairing needs to give aggression to both the ship doing the repairing and the ship receiving assistance the same way firing a weapon does. The redock timer after aggression also needs to be extended to account for the dramatic increase in ship HP over the years. Currently you can plate up and trimark a BS, aggro a bunch of stuff and the moment too much stuff for you to handle shows up you simply deaggress and wait out your timer to redock. Nothing short of 3 or 4 Gank battleships worth of firepower is going to take you down before you can dock up. If you are going to commit yourself to a fight, commit. 2. WEAPONRY AND TRACKING MECHANICS - Many of the weapon systems in eve need looked at simply because of the utter uselessness of them, Rockets and Large Artillery are the two main weapon systems that come to mind. An indepth look at all the weapon systems relative to each other needs to take place and a good hard think about each weapon systems place in the order of things. Changes need to be made to make each weapon system unique, yet still adequate for the ships that use them. Tracking Mechanics are also an ageing relic of a system that is in need of a total rewrite. Everything from the devide by 0 (OH SHI-) problem to the fact that close range large targets should litterally not need to be tracked in order to be hit and the like. Other examples include a small fast ship orbitting another small stationary ship and needing to track just as much to hit it's target as the stationary ship. 3. I DON'T HAVE A THIRD QUIBBLE RIGHT NOW BUT WHEN I ENCOUTNER IT IN GAME I'LL COME BACK TO RAGE ABOUT IT -----
RedSplat RennTech	Posted - 2009.04.25 22:09:00 - [743] Originally by: Halycon Gamma Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 25/04/2009 10:48:39 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 Players want a buff, no! 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 Didn't we just say no buffs! 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 Wait, thats a huge piece of rework, would take years to redo. 4. blasters - 61 UHG! They still haven't figured out we don't do buffs? 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 Okay, this just isn't funny anymore guys, it was cute at first, lets cut it out now. 6. rockets - 31 NO BUFFS! 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 Already looking at this, but its nowhere near ready for primetime.. need something to hold them off.. 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 Just make the buffs requests go away.. please just make them stop... 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 A NERF!!! YES!! WE CAN DO NERFS!!! And that is how they started on number 9. True story. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.26 07:59:00 - [744] Originally by: Halycon Gamma Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 25/04/2009 10:48:39 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 Players want a buff, no! 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 Didn't we just say no buffs! 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 Wait, thats a huge piece of rework, would take years to redo. 4. blasters - 61 UHG! They still haven't figured out we don't do buffs? 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 Okay, this just isn't funny anymore guys, it was cute at first, lets cut it out now. 6. rockets - 31 NO BUFFS! 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 Already looking at this, but its nowhere near ready for primetime.. need something to hold them off.. 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 Just make the buffs requests go away.. please just make them stop... 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 A NERF!!! YES!! WE CAN DO NERFS!!! And that is how they started on number 9. True story. QFFT
Gallente Citizen1	Posted - 2009.04.26 10:14:00 - [745] 1. nerf rifter or buff the other t1 frigs 2. cut hisec profits. add 5% tax to npc corps(player corps usually have 5%). increase all npc station service costs by seclvl*50%. Add 5% reprocess tax to hisec stations. 3. buff active tanking. remote rep/boost is fine but self repair lacks compared to buffer.
Malen Nenokal Oedipus Complex	Posted - 2009.04.26 10:15:00 - [746] ECCM needs a buff/change Sensor Damps need a boost
CrestoftheStars Caldari Violent Force Productions	Posted - 2009.04.26 13:02:00 - [747] Originally by: Gael Itrus Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec. i agree with the lvl 5 missions needs althoring, although i do not agree with the closer too 0.0, under 0.2(or is it 3) where there is no guns, there shouldn't be any agents. and i do not think buffing the reward is the right way too go, rather removing some of the neut towers and rebalancing the missions and giving the rats bounties instead of tags. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.04.26 13:16:00 - [748] Local? Local... LOCAL
Meridius Dex Amarr Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:27:00 - [749] I agree that CCP seem to be ignoring the feedback they asked for and are proceeding with something no one is really all that worked up about (ECM drones?). Still, felt I needed to add to the chorus: 1.) Rockets. Rockets. ROCKETS! 2.) T2 Ammo - I mean, c'mon. Really. 3.) Faction Warfare - I know CCP wants nothing more to do with it, but it's a crying shame how much promise it began with and now how it's dying on the vine due to developer neglect... Award loyalty points at a reasonable level. Taking a couple minor plexes down might grant enough LPs to buy faction ammo, for example. Changing sovereignty (or successfully defending a bunker) should grant enough LPs to purchase a faction frigate. Faction cruisers and other significant rewards should be the result of accumulating several thousand LPs. Keep LP rewards modest, make sov mean something reasonable (for docking or station services) and fix the current wardec mechanics so pirate corps can't cherry-pick individual militia player corps without being set red to all corps in that militia. Problems solved -- Faction Warfare instantly becomes a bigger hit than ever before, with lots of returning participants (and many new ones), all spread out through an exciting and ever-changing theater. -- Meridius Dex Visit the Gunship Forums --
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.04.26 16:45:00 - [750] Originally by: Halycon Gamma Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 25/04/2009 10:48:39 1. minmatar projectiles (artilleries, autocannons, regardless of size - 102 Players want a buff, no! 2. minmatar ships (capitals, bs, recons, and so on) - 93 Didn't we just say no buffs! 3. general re-balance of regions (complaints about risk / reward of highsec, lowsec, and 0.0, mostly missions) - 62 Wait, thats a huge piece of rework, would take years to redo. 4. blasters - 61 UHG! They still haven't figured out we don't do buffs? 5. t2 ammunition (typically short-range, but complaints were about it in general) - 57 Okay, this just isn't funny anymore guys, it was cute at first, lets cut it out now. 6. rockets - 31 NO BUFFS! 7. sov, pos, and the resulting 0.0 warfare - 27 Already looking at this, but its nowhere near ready for primetime.. need something to hold them off.. 8. non-ECM ewar (typically, boost it) - 27 Just make the buffs requests go away.. please just make them stop... 9. ecm drones specifically - 20 A NERF!!! YES!! WE CAN DO NERFS!!! And that is how they started on number 9. True story. I wonder if CCP know that nerfing makes eve more like hello kitty online... ===============

Boosted	Posted - 2009.04.26 19:49:00 - [751] Edited by: Boosted on 26/04/2009 19:53:05 1) Beam Lasers; Why have them if NO BATTLESHIP can fit eight w/o powergrid mods? 2) Beam Laser Tracking; It's a BEAM LASER! If you miss, you adjust. There should be no missing after the first volley. Also, why do beam lasers even turn off? They're supposed to be like flame throwers. 3) T2 battleship and HAC market prices. 3x normal BS prices should be high enough. Please look into adjusting seeding of req'd goods to lower prices to reduce these prices. 1 Billion isk for a BS that's barely 2x as good as a regular BS is kinda steep (talking about the paladin).
Gael Itrus	Posted - 2009.04.26 22:45:00 - [752] Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Gael Itrus Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec. i agree with the lvl 5 missions needs althoring, although i do not agree with the closer too 0.0, under 0.2(or is it 3) where there is no guns, there shouldn't be any agents. and i do not think buffing the reward is the right way too go, rather removing some of the neut towers and rebalancing the missions and giving the rats bounties instead of tags. Greater risk should always give potentially higher rewards. If players are going for Level 5 agents in .1 or 0.0 that could potentially give them hundreds of millions of isk, the odds should be stacked against them. Cooperation rules the day in these scenarios and it's the direction CCP is going vis-a-vis wormhole space, and high quality ores/rats in low sec. Missions should be no different eh?
CrestoftheStars Caldari Violent Force Productions	Posted - 2009.04.26 23:02:00 - [753] Originally by: Gael Itrus Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Gael Itrus Missiles They were severely degraded with the QR Patch, they are now easily speed tanked by ships in their class range. Level 5 Missions Level 4 missions should remain untouched in high sec, and Level 5 mission rewards should be substantially buffed. I'd go so far as to have them possibly drop faction loot, have the agents offer faction ships for the tougher varieties, and have the missions average 30-40 million isk each, unsalvaged. The number and quality of Level 5 agents, and the value of the rewards should be increased the closer you get to 0.0, with the best possible agents and missions being in 0.0 Low Sec Moon-mining It would be nice to see an increase in the number of R2 and R3 moons in low-sec, to offset rising T2 costs post exploit. Also along those lines, remove the faction standings requirements to put up a low-sec POS. With the Level 5 buff this will serve the secondary role of substantially increasing traffic in low sec. i agree with the lvl 5 missions needs althoring, although i do not agree with the closer too 0.0, under 0.2(or is it 3) where there is no guns, there shouldn't be any agents. and i do not think buffing the reward is the right way too go, rather removing some of the neut towers and rebalancing the missions and giving the rats bounties instead of tags. Greater risk should always give potentially higher rewards. If players are going for Level 5 agents in .1 or 0.0 that could potentially give them hundreds of millions of isk, the odds should be stacked against them. Cooperation rules the day in these scenarios and it's the direction CCP is going vis-a-vis wormhole space, and high quality ores/rats in low sec. Missions should be no different eh? have you done lvl 5 missions? the LP alone is over 100mill ( if taking the correct lp rewards). the lack of bounty + the neut towers (which is just totally silly how they suddenly came in with a ton of neut towers in missions, just ******ed) is what makes them not worth doing. if the neut towers where removed, and there was a bounty on rats instead of tags in there wracks, it would be worth doing.. or put them into highsec so that people would actually do them :P (but don't think this would be good, another type of missions with a ton of bs and bc rats where comming at you) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Necronus Amarr Monks of War United Legion	Posted - 2009.04.27 04:56:00 - [754] 1. Supercapitals / Capitals need revising taking into account ammount of them deployed these days. 2. Sensor dampeners need loving (slight one , not like returning them to overpowered past , but making sense in using them at all, nerfing of ECM range have helped dampers a bit but i think more love is neccesary) 3. Safe travels should be nerfed. (making logistics easier is a good way but making them safe is not. With sizes of jump gates increased it became harder to catch people, with introducing of almost safe jump bridges, jump freighter (and carriers/titans) and nerfing of stealth bombers "blink" tactics it became almost too safe transporting valuables from 0.0 to Empire space. Anyone seen freighter convoys recently? :)
Paper Clips	Posted - 2009.04.27 07:54:00 - [755] 1. Artillery's role (Sucks or is average in every way at the moment) 2. ECM drones 3. More specialty mining ships! :3
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.27 09:13:00 - [756] Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along.
Lijhal FrEE d00M Fighters	Posted - 2009.04.27 10:21:00 - [757] 1) npc corps in general people are running missions for them, preventing themselfs for any wardec and collect isk after isk ... thats a real problem with the entire isk amount currently in eve ... and as far i know, the main aspect of eve is pvp ... not collecting isk to dominate the market Solution: increase the tax of npc corps up to 90% ... or scale the tax for any npc hugger, lets say up to + 10% tax for each month they will stay in a npc corp ... joining a pc corp and leaving her after a day or two should result in 90% tax in any npc corp, to prevent corp jumping and farming isk again .. people should be forced to join a PC corp, not to stay for years in a npc corp .... 2) Missiles 3) 0,0 Sov
CrestoftheStars Caldari Violent Force Productions	Posted - 2009.04.27 11:14:00 - [758] Originally by: Valorous Bob 1) Blasterboats need web bonus 2) Faction ships need unique models (ex: Vindicator) 3) Fix Rockets!!!! blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. :) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:56:00 - [759] 1) Blockade Runners have disbalance. Minmatar Prowler have 2 high-slots and can fit Covert Ops Cloak + Core Probe Launcher and so it can easily travel through wormholes. 3 Other don't have them and can't travel solo in W-space. So give a second high-slot to all blockade runners. 2) Their is no drone implants (i know that CCP aware of that problem, but still...) 3) Assault frigates have no good role anywhere. ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.04.27 12:58:00 - [760] Originally by: CrestoftheStars blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. Interesting?. So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use. Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them.

RedSplat RennTech	Posted - 2009.04.27 13:08:00 - [761] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Temitten	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:06:00 - [762] 1) Rockets This is easily the worst, least powerful, of all weapon systems. They were terrible before the general missile nerf and now they're even more useless. Rockets should be the high damage/short range missile launcher for frigates. Now it is poor damage/short range, but easy to fit. A ship like the vengeance will perform better with lasers/blasters/autocannons/standard launchers than with its bonused weapon system. 2) Short range t2 ammo I believe that short range t2 missiles work pretty well (though missiles suck overall), but short range t2 charges/projectiles/crystals are really poor compared to faction for almost any situation (conflag L is decent for shooting caps, I assume the same goes for blaster and ac ammo). 3) E-war and recon ships Tracking disruptors, warp disruptors/scramblers and ecm work pretty well on amarr, gallente or caldari recons. Minmatar recons could use a web strength bonus, but they're pretty useful either way. Sensor dampeners are quite crummy, gallente recons should get a rather significant strength bonus to these. Now target painters and minmatar recons.. maybe they're more useful now when working with the improved stealth bombers, I wouldn't know, also target painters are slightly underrated, but even so this is easily the worst form of e-war.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.04.27 15:55:00 - [763] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. And I'll be quoting this guy in a similar fashion. Seriously CCP, what gives here? I'm glad you started a thread like this, but if you're just going to cherry pick the easy ideas that aren't bothering many people, then I'm seriously disappointed.
miss Hail	Posted - 2009.04.27 20:52:00 - [764] 1)projectile weapon 2)blaster 3)active vs passive tanking
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.04.28 00:38:00 - [765] Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: isdisco3 /me listens to the tumbleweeds as CCP abandons the thread to fix what they wanted to fix all along. I'm going to keep quoting posts like this till CCP responds as to why this is the case. And I'll be quoting this guy in a similar fashion. Seriously CCP, what gives here? I'm glad you started a thread like this, but if you're just going to cherry pick the easy ideas that aren't bothering many people, then I'm seriously disappointed. a faint glimmer of hope ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Phidell Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.28 02:02:00 - [766] 1. Tanking. Armor tanking needs a big nerf. Well, not so much, but I hate that as a caldari pilot, I'm pretty much unable to fly in a BS gang without totally gimping the ship. Boost shield tanking somewhat. Shield buffer is great for smaller engagements but active tanking is costly, and tackle mods are often needed in the precious midslots. Not sure what can be done, but I'd like to see Remote transport shield gangs, without all of the gang being goddamn caldari. 2. Blockade Runners:Uncatchable. It's BS. Think about what is actually needed to catch one. Just look at blockade runners killed. I'd bet first that the number is tiny, and second that it was pilot error. They warp quickly, fine. They covops cloak, fine. Put them together with ships that can fit an mwd, and you have yourself a pretty much uncatchable ship. Even a large bubble on a gate won't contain the BR. Cloak + mwd and it can get out of the bubble right away. Decloak it? Sure, you try that yourselves. See how often you can do it before it burns out and aligns for warp. 3. Falcon nerf is alright I'm having fun in a blaster falcon, but 1 ship deserves to get a range bonus. I mean, I'd rather use a blackbird at range then a falcon close up.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.04.28 02:06:00 - [767] Originally by: Finnroth Edited by: Finnroth on 17/04/2009 10:38:14 1.) ECM Drones and EW Drones in general Heard this a lot, and I use ECM drones plenty... I don't see them being all that great. In 1v1 situations they're viable... otherwise there is no point at all in using them. With a total jam Str of 2 they [larges] usually get one or two cycles on something like a T1 frig or cruiser but most often utterly fail to jam anything that they can catch up with (BS). Originally by: Finnroth 2.) Rockets, they're just horrible. ALL small missiles suck utterly. Rockets are pointless entirely considering how many ships depend on them (Flycatcher, et al), and light missiles only slightly better. FoF also need some serious examination to be at all viable, as do laugh Defenders. Originally by: Finnroth 3.) Most of the T2 ammunition suck hard. Sniper ammo is fine, and some close-quarter long-range ammo (namely scorch) is more or less fine, but the high dps short-short-range ammo sucks in comparison with faction ammo (i don't care if you want to do something about faction ammo or boost the normal T2 ammo, eitherway there's an imbalance at the moment). The short long-rage ammo is also pretty much across the board utter trash - in dire need for some love. Agreed 100%, and I've been saying this for years. Faction ammo has zero nerfs, but does exactly the same (if not more) damage than it's T2 version. Faction ammo should recieve some nerfs, or the idiot nerfs on T2 need to be reduced considerably and made so that they *don't stack!* as they currently do.
Tekki Sandan Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.28 03:21:00 - [768] 1) Motherships - Before Hic's they had a point, now that they can be tackled so easy, can we give them a use because they are just a carrier with more buffer and to be fair would you be willing to pay that much for a ship that cant dock if it doesnt have any real use now other than defending cyno jammers? 2) Missiles - Dont see a point in training them because they are useless currently! 3) Black Ops Jump Portals Because of the Ships that can use it being restricted i dont see why the range should be reduced so much. I think instead of the >5 ly jump range they should make it more like 7ly. just my ideas
Phidell Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.04.28 05:03:00 - [769] 1,2,3) covops cloaks Try killing just about any ship that can fit them. Frigates can be smartbombed, but that means setting up a bubble or having the ships warp into one. Simply put, any halfway decent pilot that knows to warp to another planet first, means that their is just about no chance to catch a cov ops, stealth bombers, Recons, and Blockade Runners. Seriously CCP, try to catch a ship on a gate or warping to it. They are much more invulnerable than they should be, and probing cloaked ships won't change that.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.04.28 06:51:00 - [770] My top 3 (after reading that you're fixing the Nag) are for: 1. Shield transporters - use way too much CPU. No battleship can effectively fit them, and the Chimera runs out of CPU with 3 remote reps while the Archon can fit 5. Transporters need a cpu decrease on all variants. Also, capital shield transporters use more cap than armor RR. This might be an acceptable tradeoff for repping at the beginning of the cycle, but shields also generally have lower resistances, which I always considered to be an equivalent balancer. This problem is probably one reason shield tanks are not used much in remote rep gangs, or pvp in general. 2. Projectiles - specifically large artillery, and maybe medium. There is no reason why it should be idiotic to fly any minmatar cruiser or BC sized ship with artillery over ACs - and idiotic to fly the Muninn, period. Also, Matar do not have a competitive sniper battleship, possibly due to the shortcomings of the Tempest. Mael is not a sniper (big dronebay, active rep bonus) and the Phoon can't fit arty anyway. 3. Overhaul the entire UI Other stuff I agree with: Rockets? Sensor damps - shouldn't be useless Defender missiles? remove or boost? *Torpedos - reduce explosion radius to 400, bringing them inline with guns Active tanking bonuses - rep amount vs resistance, rep amount isn't "bigger enough" *T2 close range ammo - useless? Faction ships ewar drones - useless boost Caracal remove local in 0.0 LP for factional warfare change sov mechanics away from POSes Nighthawk sucks

Ihara Rika	Posted - 2009.04.28 07:03:00 - [771] Edited by: Ihara Rika on 28/04/2009 07:06:08 Edited by: Ihara Rika on 28/04/2009 07:04:57 Originally by: Ecky X My top 3 (after reading that you're fixing the Nag) are for: 1. Shield transporters - use way too much CPU. No battleship can effectively fit them, and the Chimera runs out of CPU with 3 remote reps while the Archon can fit 5. Transporters need a cpu decrease on all variants. Also, capital shield transporters use more cap than armor RR. This might be an acceptable tradeoff for repping at the beginning of the cycle, but shields also generally have lower resistances, which I always considered to be an equivalent balancer. This problem is probably one reason shield tanks are not used much in remote rep gangs, or pvp in general. 1. I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE // Shield Transporters - use way too much CPU and capacitor (The above examples plus the thanatos fitting 3 shield transfers AND 2 armor transfers, while the Chimera can only fit 3 shield transfers period.) This also partly applies to Capital Shield Boosters as well. 2. Torpedoes - reduce explosion radius to 400 or less, bringing them inline with guns - Explosion Velocity could use some additional looking at however. 3. T2 close range ammo - useless? There is virtually no existing reason why any pilot should fit T2 close range ammo on a ship when the faction equivalent can do it better. Other things I agree with: Boost the Caracal - no reason to fly compared to other t1 cruisers Remove local in 0.0 // Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Kreptus Gallente Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.04.28 10:48:00 - [772] Edited by: Kreptus on 28/04/2009 10:51:10 Some on else already expressed my thoughts... 1. Empire warfare through wardeccing. Entirely based around station camping on the very very very few occasions when either side doesn't simply evade the wardec by jumping corps. Economic and counter-logistical warfare is a fools errand. Again, not stats-based balancing but rather gaming mechanics that makes the (supposed) fighting non-existant because the balance between what means are available to the attacker are not in synch with what's available to the defender. 2. 0.0 warfare, in particular POS-Based Sovereignty. Too easy to create and maintain vs. soul-crushing boredom to attack. Not so much a classic stats-balance issue, but one of motivational balance: there is little disincentive against spam POSes all ove the place, whereas on the other side, POS spam create huge disincentives against attacking due to tedium rather than actual difficulty. 3. Sensor dampers need a little bump up, they were dialed down a little too much.
Gordan 23	Posted - 2009.04.28 11:04:00 - [773] Edited by: Gordan 23 on 28/04/2009 11:04:59 1) Artillery 2) Rockets 3) Rapier (give it web strength bonus?)
Den McConan Caldari Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs Red Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.28 13:21:00 - [774] 1) Missiles. Make them close to gunnery 2) Black Ops and other Jump Ship, give'em fuel bay 3) Shiled tanking and electonic devices (Caldary so bad for real PvP, make them good)
Amerilia	Posted - 2009.04.28 14:30:00 - [775] Boosts: 1. Artillery 2. Rockets 3. Faction Ships
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.28 15:07:00 - [776] 1- sov mechanics,in the moment sov 3 and 4 are pain in the ass,towers shooting towers harden poses ect,fleets with 300+ lag nerves boring... 2- sniping bs,in the moment there is 3 viable ships in sniper fleets in 0.0 tempest megathron apocalypse,there is other good bs but they are either too expensive or underpar a bit,for example caldari bs in sniping fleet is nowhere to be seen,eve is game of variety but in the moment if you want to be in big 0.0 alliance you need to fly 3 certain ships... 3- Cloaked afk scouts,you just log it cloack it and all day you are there anoying and getting intel also cloaking ships with not intended bonuses alike cloaking bses ect,i would like to see change in this area.
Midge Mo'yb Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates	Posted - 2009.04.28 16:19:00 - [777] 1. Sov mechanics, once in place it is very difficult to uproot an alliance, control should be governed by pressence/activity in the area... not who can spam the most towers 2. Moon Minerals should be alot more Dynamic and not "infinite" this would create a new mini proffession within eve. 3. Empire/0.0 Risk/Reward needs looking into level 4 missions are way too profitable or 0.0 needs a buff to make it more proffitable to live in, and thus draw players from empire. -----------------------------------------------
Sopherin	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:00:00 - [778] 1. Large Projectile Artilery 2. Minmatar BS (Tempest/Malestorm) 3. Minmatar Caps.
Project Twilight	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:03:00 - [779] 1. Destroyers, they need a complete overhaul. I would suggest removing the rof penalty. There is nothing wrong with a big, fat, slow glass cannon. 2. ECM is chanced based, which means it can fail in the most critical moment. all other Electronic warfare works all the time. rapidly reducing the ranged at which ECM works introduces a whole host of problems. 3. Drones. They use no cap, they are very tough to destroy, they work even when the drone ship is jammed....
Zarak1 Kenpach1 R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.28 20:48:00 - [780] 1. Naglfar needs additional low or additional mid and more cpu. 2. Give us back our faction propulsion mod velocity boni. 3. Arties can no longer compete with other races range wise due to the locus nerf. this needs a rethink.

Rukia KuchikiSan	Posted - 2009.04.28 21:29:00 - [781] 1. Making money; macroers are rich, people with multiple accounts are rich; people with multiple accounts use macro... they are, you know, rich. Playing a fair game with 1 char: poor = a lot of time ratting/missioning/mining REGULARLY(not macroing) = not funny.
Incantare	Posted - 2009.04.28 22:27:00 - [782] 1) Citadel torpedo explosion velocity. Currently citadels deal pathetic damage to moving capitals, signficantly less than guns. 2) The absence of a long range capital missile. 3) The nighthawk needs more grid. I know it has enough for the role the devs envisioned for the ship, but that role is useless and not in tune with the in game reality.
Nova Soldier Caldari ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2009.04.28 23:08:00 - [783] 1. Artilery weapons do not pose a match to lasers and hybrids to range and rof.Soon the lasers and hybrids will do more alpha than arty's. 2. 'Naglrolf' is a joke for a capital ship.A waste of money.Needs a major ballance to get in line with the outher capital ships. 3. Vargur is useless.It needs more POWERGRID.
Jhagiti Tyran Mortis Angelus	Posted - 2009.04.29 04:36:00 - [784] 1) Ship fittings Instead of listing a whole bunch of ships I will just lump it together under the same issue. Many ships have extremely gimped cpu or powergrid which makes seem less useful than other ships in the same class and it looks like its a throw back to an earlier state of the games balance because many of the latest introductions or recently rebalanced ships are much easier to fit with T2 modules whilst still maintaining the compromises you make when fitting them like choosing between tank and firepower while ships that have not been adjusted since introduction are really difficult to fit with their races relevant sized weapons and other utility such as cap injectors or active tanking modules. 2) Close range T2 turret ammo In most cases utterly useless with to much penalty and to little benefit compared to faction ammo. 3) Micro warp drive Vs Afterburner One of the stated goals of the big speed re balance was to decrease the gap between MWDs and Afterburners and it didn't really work out because the MWD is still the best choice for most ship classes in pvp, the much greater speed the MWD provides still outweighs the fitting and resource cost even at the risk of the warp scrambler shutting it down (not much different than being double webbed before the web changes) and most in situations where you need speed Afterburners just don't cut the mustard. Possible fixes could be increased Fitting and cap use for Afterburners with much greater speed bonus perhaps somewhere between current figures and MWDs. -
Zhal V RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.29 08:11:00 - [785] The first 3 that come to mind: 1. Fix Naglfar's damage output. Comparing to the other dreads it is....well below average. 2. Fix rockets 3. Make 0,4 sec system moons able to anchor moon harvesters
Den McConan Caldari Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs Red Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.29 09:37:00 - [786] What about "Align To" option in context menu of bookmarks?
Scouteye Locasta Tactical	Posted - 2009.04.29 11:15:00 - [787] Arazu Dampending, damps got nerfed but the arazu didnt get a boost to bring it back into a specilised role as strong as Jamming, its current bonus is poor.
Jeanine Brown	Posted - 2009.04.29 11:46:00 - [788] Edited by: Jeanine Brown on 29/04/2009 11:47:09 1. Gallente and Minmatar recons need their e-war bonuses tweaked (web and dampener strength bonus added) 2. Naglaflaglatar needs improvements. 3. moonmining should be more randomized.
Khamal Kahn No Trademark	Posted - 2009.04.29 14:07:00 - [789] 1. Tech 2 ammo - close range ammo is garbage with the exception of scorch. 2. Weapon systems - Medium/ Large Blasters need a tracking boost. And some minmatar ships i.e. Naglfar needs a boost with its split weapons. 3. Blackops - fuel bay please.
speedcat Gallente Human Liberty Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.29 17:32:00 - [790] 1) Remove insurance for highsec-gank against Concord rules. There is a reason why Concord kills you for that and for sure you should not get money back from the insurance. Perhaps make an insurance-system which allows players to start a special insurance-type-corp which special insurance-accounts and the possibility to set a fix margin as income of this companies. Then the leadership of this corp can decide up to which risk they want to insure ships. Of course there has be a riskcalculation behind every pilot similar to the standings-calculation but based upon losses etc. 2) Gallente is no longer a serious pvp race. You nerfed it too much. Current dronesystem is useless (probesystem is much better). Drones in general can be destroyed but are a main part of damage dealing. Blasters are too shortrange, Rails tracking nothing expect of the Mega with the bonus applied and all in all they use same cap as Amarr. And now you want to nerf ECM too, which was the last chance to get rid of longrange UBER -races. 3) Give the Capitalships an overhaul, I remember Wing Commander where the Capitals were a special class of ships mostly untouched by smaller ships. For example introduce a new weapon class with fast auto-targeting Antismallguns similar to Battlestar with more action and delay the first shot of a doomsday so a Titan first comes to the battlefield and then first shoots on the small targets while it's preparing his big gun which only should go against large ships. speedcat

isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.04.29 17:37:00 - [791] now taking bets on where the hell nozh is. im betting hijacked by somali pirates.
Liang Nuren No Salvation PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.04.29 17:49:00 - [792] Originally by: isdisco3 now taking bets on where the hell nozh is. im betting hijacked by somali pirates. If the odds are good enough, I'm willing to throw 1M on quietly investigating things in this thread/forum (simply not posting). -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
To mare	Posted - 2009.04.29 22:18:00 - [793] 1- artillery and projectile weapons in general (not only at BS level) 2- active tank VS passive tank 3- all the unused ships need a rework (tier1 BCs, lots of tech1 cruiser, etc.)
linedash	Posted - 2009.04.29 22:39:00 - [794] For the love of god and all that is holy, please.. Give the retribution a second mid in place of that silly utility high... Ceptors are no longer scared of double-webbing rapiers.. Web strength inc or a touch more DPS (moar guns?) perhaps? Sov/Pos Warfare. I'll leave this for the many people who can elocute better than I, but we all know it's broken.
msu320	Posted - 2009.04.30 01:21:00 - [795] In terms of missions, Indeed I agree whole heartedly towards the need to increase the risk vs reward. the average lvl 4 mission gives you about 10 mill in isk, + salvage and loot. And it's easy to plan ahead for the missions because theres so much repetition. Its not that hard to make quick changes to the mission codes to allow the servers to decide that for this 1 mission, theres gonna be some mercs dealing heavy EM damage on this mission which the player thinks is gonna be all Serpentis (mean, I know). the other obvious one is use updated AI.
Solid Prefekt Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.30 02:26:00 - [796] Originally by: honey bunchetta Originally by: CrestoftheStars blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. Interesting?. So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use. Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them. I honestly do not understand the blaster problem now that Scramblers turn off the MWD. Just Scramble + Web and your target is slower then post web nerf. The Scramble range is similar to the web so not sure what all the fuss is about. And if you can't get in web range you are going to lose the target anyways so losing the 24pt (for the MWD disabling one) does not seem to be a huge loss.
Poppa Troll	Posted - 2009.04.30 08:06:00 - [797] Originally by: Solid Prefekt Originally by: honey bunchetta Originally by: CrestoftheStars blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns. Interesting?. So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use. Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them. I honestly do not understand the blaster problem now that Scramblers turn off the MWD. Just Scramble + Web and your target is slower then post web nerf. The Scramble range is similar to the web so not sure what all the fuss is about. And if you can't get in web range you are going to lose the target anyways so losing the 24pt (for the MWD disabling one) does not seem to be a huge loss. not to debate in this thread, but if you werer running the mwd before while being 90% webbed your sig radius was HUGE, so trackign was a lot easier than no mwd running 60% web
Mortuis Veritatem	Posted - 2009.04.30 08:07:00 - [798] Edited by: Mortuis Veritatem on 30/04/2009 08:09:22 1 You nerfed webs --> Boost Blasters now (they are usless in combination with gallente ships mass/agility) 2 Rebalance Tier 1 vs Tier 2 for battlecruisers (seems like Brutix, Ferox , Cyclone are used only by newbies in Empire )EDIT: and only if this newbie hasn't enough isks 3 Fix jamming mechanic ( After you nerfed dampners they are only ECM used )
Soyemia Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.04.30 10:53:00 - [799] Now watch CCP **** up all the rest of the balancing like the Nagl
Amerilia	Posted - 2009.04.30 12:02:00 - [800] Originally by: Soyemia Now watch CCP **** up all the rest of the balancing like the Nagl They just said boost Nag boost nag,- not how to boost it and CCP decided to boost the volley damage,- so now you have to go over to the nag thread and state what you want..

Giddoni	Posted - 2009.04.30 12:58:00 - [801] Hi CCP, tl;dr: Suggestions in Bold I suppose it's probably too late to post in this thread, but I'd like to go ahead and mention the things that I'd like to see re-balanced: 1) Hawk It's hard to find what role this ship was meant for. Currently I use it to solo Level 3s (which is fun!), but it doesn't seem like I could ever use it in PvP. If you fit this ship for tackling, you can't really take advantage of its shield booster bonus, which is the part of this ship that really shines. Add any tackle, and you lose your cap stability. Rockets aren't viable (see below). So the role of this ship then should be a medium/long-range (40+ km) anti-frigate weapon. But then you run into these two problems: - The DPS is very low compared to other assault frigates. If your target is ABing or using Defender missiles, it's game over. I'm suggesting to add an Assault Ship Skill bonus: -3% Launcher Rate of Fire per level. This would give it DPS in line with a railgun harpy at the same range against a stationary target. - A full Tech-2 fit isn't possible due to CPU constraints. Even if you leave the 5th high slot empty, you still are relegated to using some Tech-1 components, which doesn't really make sense on an assault frigate. I'd suggest a CPU increase to accommodate the following fit: [Hawk, Active Tank + Anti-EM Rigs] Capacitor Flux Coil II Capacitor Flux Coil II Cap Recharger II Shield Boost Amplifier II Small Shield Booster II 1MN Afterburner II Standard Missile Launcher II Standard Missile Launcher II Standard Missile Launcher II Standard Missile Launcher II [empty high slot] Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I 2) Rockets. The explosion velocity is really low, relegating this weapon to the "reprocess" stack. I'd like to see a boost to the explosion velocity to make this a viable weapon. 3) Rigs can't really be used on any Tech 1 ship smaller than a battlecruiser. I like the suggestions that have already been fielded: Make Frigate-sized rigs that are cheap to manufacture but require much more Calibration in order to fit.
arbiter reborn	Posted - 2009.04.30 14:50:00 - [802] 1. o.o sov mechanics 2. moon mining and distribution of 0.0 welth 3. lowsec, bs rats are nice what about all lvl 4 missions above quality -10 in lowsec hahaha, (im serious)
Photon Ceray	Posted - 2009.04.30 20:54:00 - [803] 1 Deimos/blaster ships. Blasters got nerfed badly with web nerf, blaster ships are rather useless and especially the Deimos, this ship needs proper bonuses, give it a speed boost to reach something before it warps off or kites it. 2- Sov mechanics, don't know how, but they need rework imo. 3- T2 ammo is mostly crap, same dps as faction ammo only more cap usage, half the tracking and other stuff.
Roland 99 Minmatar Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.30 21:20:00 - [804] Edited by: Roland 99 on 30/04/2009 21:27:16 1. Large Projectile Turrets Large Projectile Turrets are absolutely HORRIBLE compared to lasers or rails in every manner. Crappy range, horrid tracking, and Insufficient alpha. In fact, the alpha on large artilleries has been crap since the 15% ship HP buff way back and I don't even want to talk about trimarks. 2. T2 High damage Ammo 100% Useless. Remove the drawbacks and/or completely redesign 3. Tempest/Maelstrom The tempest is the only fleet battleship that cant handle a DD without completely destroying the setup or spending 60 mil in rigs. It's range is the worst, it's alpha is meaningless with BS'es running around with 30K armor, it's tracking will not keep up with a cruiser at 150K if he's moving. First the 15% HP buff really stung the tempest, but it still was somewhat viable. Then, the addition of trimarks made it's alpha useless in fleets. Then scripting came along. Because the artilleries really needed both tracking and range from mods to be effective scripting nerfed the tempest into uselessness. The Maelstrom's bonus is completely lost in a fleet configuration because of scripting and having to use 3 SB's and 2 TC's just to be able to lock and hit out at fleet ranges. It's only use currently is an expensive angel ratter. CCP you will find a lot of former minmatar pilots in here who trained for apocs because the tempest really does suck that bad.
paddytehpyro Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.04.30 22:39:00 - [805] 1. Rockets. They are useless pretty much. Far too low DPS for a "Close range" weapon. 2. The Hawk. Again...near useless. Could be fixed by increasing CPU I guess or just fixing rockets 3. Torpedoes. Not really terrible but still...a slightly higher explosion velocity would be nice to make a torp raven viable.
Onizuka GTO Caldari Macross crp.	Posted - 2009.05.01 08:20:00 - [806] Edited by: Onizuka GTO on 01/05/2009 08:23:03 Originally by: paddytehpyro 3. Torpedoes. Not really terrible but still...a slightly higher explosion velocity would be nice to make a torp raven viable. Hey, if the "generous" torpedoes velocity bonus on the stealth bomber is still not so "viable", what's the point of upping the it on the raven? it's not going to make much of a difference! But i agree about the rockets, I have not met a single person who use rockets....not even for PvE. They really need to increase the capacity and RoF for rocket launchers, but make the reload longer to compensate. The damage to T2 and fraction ammo should also have the damage output slightly tweaked up. ==== Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death.Good Luck
Austin Fleck	Posted - 2009.05.01 15:05:00 - [807] 1. I would like to see the little link to market value when i hit modify order--they have it for when you hit sell item (little magnifying glass icon). 2. T2 projectile ammo has to severe of penalties. 3. The gate and station guns in low sec are too easily tanked. Make them go after multiple targets too please. The way things are now low sec is more dangerous than 0.0.
sweikewa	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:21:00 - [808] 1. LEAVE lvl 4 alone. it's the only high sec way to make money. if it's so freaking good why don't you do them.. In low sec, true sec you got BS'spawns ( oficer drops) xxkk a drop cosmic anomalies(radar sites, nice revenus after short time),high end ores, POS MOON mining ( very good profit..), Roqal, ability to make lvl 5 witch capital ships and so one.... So dont' say it's profitable as lvl 4 high sec... 2. Missille nerf was overballanced bs with cruises shooting at rat making full speed makes 50-70 % of its' max dmg.. best way to tank missiles: just fly with full speed ... 3. Personal POS launching. I wat to have an abbility to launch my own private control tower.. I don't think EVE is pro comunistic...
Creat Posudol Gallente Destined for Greatness Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:36:00 - [809] Haven't read completely through (on page 4 now), probably will do that though and might edit this post after I have. I make my ISK with a combination of Level 4s, Industry (production/invention) and Market activities (including buying and then reprocessing typical mission loot modules), so this affects me in many ways. Level 4 Missions (or rather: loot drop in general) Not the amount reward but the type of reward(s), since this has a huge impact on the entire economy by injecting minerals. Possible fixes (it's a higly complex issue though) include replacing drops (all NPCs, not just Level 4 mission NPCs) with BPCs, maybe not only 1-run-BPCs but reducing drop chance and allow multirun BPCs (with various run counts, totaling the same amout in the end). Since this substantially reduces the value of the loot (most loot modules up to meta 2 or 3 are obviously worth less than their reprocessed minerals), increase mission rewards to compensate for that (they're much too low anyway, basically nobody even cares about them compared to loot/bounty/salvage). I do realize though that this puts kind of a dent in the immersion, since all of a sudden NPCs don't leave behind modules they used but rather BPCs for those... kinda weird I admit. Remove meta-0 drops completely, they should be provided by the player economy and the BPOs are seeded nicely!
Lord Vyper Caldari Beyond Evil and Good United Star Federation	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:41:00 - [810] 1) Railguns need a small dps increase considering how much cap you use. 2) Caldari powergrids need an increase to make active tanking more viable. Nighthawk for example 3) EW drones, ECM is the only good option atm. The others need to be brought up to par.

Joshua Cy	Posted - 2009.05.01 20:46:00 - [811] What I see as needing balance in EVE 1)The first thing that needs balance isà. Balance. Do you remember the anti-speed buff? No? How about the anti-missile buff? No, what you remember is the speed Nerf and the missile Nerf. When ôbalancingö is done, its done by means of nerfs more often than by buffs. Balance is out of balance. Issue: When re-balancing is done, do an equal amount of nerfs and buffs. 2)Coding effort is un-balanced. The entire time I have played this game, I have gotten crashes, lockups, disconnects, and weird graphics artifacts. Also there are things in the game most everyone sees as ôbrokenö like bounties, defender missiles, or the ôpay to griefö war dec system. Each update I hope that this time things will be fixed. No, just more features added. IÆve heard that CCP does not even have plans to fix some things. Instead we get new ships and systems, while basic components of the game lie rotting. Issue: Coding effort should be balanced between new features and fixing problems. 3)The biggest un-balance in the game stems from a fundamental lack of understanding between two groups: Those who like PvP, and those who do not. First, an attempt to increase that understanding. You may ask, ôWhy do some not like PvP?ö I can only speak for myself and report on what I learn from others. The reason I do not like PvP is I do not get ôThe Rushö. That burst of adrenalin that comes from PvP to some feels good, maybe very good, and is worth risking their entire wallet to get. They get the rush. For me that burst leaves me feeling ill for the rest of the day EVEN WHEN I WIN. I do not play games to feel ill. Based on talks to other players, it seems that getting the rush and liking PvP are strongly related. Why do some get or not get the rush? I researched this, and according to Dr. Drew Pinsky itÆs genetic. We are born that way. Please do not hate someone for the way they are born. At present the game seems to be built around forcing these two groups together. But due to a fundamental genetic difference, they will not get together. Instead the two groups need to respect each other. I think the game should be structured to give each group more of what it wants without forcing them together. Issue: The game has too much content that tries to force PvPers and nonPvPers together; more content geared to the likes of each group is needed.
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2009.05.02 02:19:00 - [812] 1) undocking in a system is unbalanced compared to jumping into a system explanation see here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1062924 2) T2 Ammo enough posted about this 3) High Sec Kill Mission Loot The NPC should drop named T1 BPC if at all and no more T1 Modules, this will remove pressure on medium minerals and give starting producers a chance in the field of T1 items.. keep isk-payment and bounty as is to prevent deflation. PS: I hope this thread is already is checked by you Nozh crosses fingers Forge '07 on Sale
Hawk Firestorm	Posted - 2009.05.02 06:28:00 - [813] 1. The economy, NPC corps should play a active role in regulating the market, both selling and buying goods to remove them from game, and more importantly for you off the database, and to sell goods on Volume that stops the playerbase from manipulating the market causing hyper inflation without loosing their shirts trying to do so. Players operating between these 'safety valves'. 2. Pricing and Manufacture of T2+ items especially ships that utterly preclude their use due to the insane risk involved because of pricing that makes them entirely redundant beign in game in the first place for anything more than missioning or being hanger orniments, rather than the user having access to content appropriate for where they are in eve. 3. BLOB warfare, Super corps/Alliances that have pushed the weak design elements of eve past the brink and degraded the gamplay especially fleet warfare, one reason being while the population of eve has increased over 10 fold the universe hasn't, a MASSIVE expansion of eve colonisable space to encourage smaller corps and alliances and therefore gang sizes back to a sensible level. Perhaps even opening up new galaxies to explore and communities to empire build in, and take advantage of some human traits like being somewhat lazy and not wanting to travel over huge distances to fight which also helps mitigate gang/territory size. Huge fleet battles are a great idea unfortunately CCP hasn't improved the core design elements of eve to suit the high population to allow it and still keep the quality of the gameplay, you've just thrown hardware and content at it rather than improving the core design elements.
Kyang Tia	Posted - 2009.05.02 08:06:00 - [814] 1) Boost Minmatar and Gallente recons (give Rapier a web strengh bonus and increase the damp bonus on Arazu/Lachesis) 2) Give short range weapon systems (esp. blasters, but also autocannons) slightly more tracking and optimal. 3) Boost Nosferau in some way. They are quite useless in PvP.
Tomin Highborn Minmatar No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.02 08:17:00 - [815] the top 3 things that bug me the most about this game are: 1. not being able to repier stuff in the corp hanger. at least people with director rolls should be able to do this. 2. not being able to make a contract becuse of damaged items exspesaily laser crystals. it would not be hard to have a built in fee added to repiar you items. that leads me in to the next one. 3. not having a repiar in all station, you should be able to turn your armor rep on in station or some thing. that all that really bugs me but since this does not seem to bug any one else i guess they will not be first on the list to get fixed. tomin
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.05.02 11:37:00 - [816] Originally by: Abrazzar 1.) Mining mineral output vs module reprocessing output. Mining should be the major source of minerals by a significant proportion. It should be some 75% not the less than 60% it is now. 2.) Faction item balancing. This includes faction ships and modules. Either make some of them cheaper or more effective. For example most modules in the Gallente LP store. The cost of faction ships compared to their abilities and pirate faction ships' stats. Everything concerning LP stores and faction items could use some time investigating. 3.) Tier 1 Battlecruisers. They need a more distinctive role from the tier 2 BCs. Especially the Prophecy and Cyclone. Tank and gank are not different roles by themselves, they are just different ends of the same stick. Could add more but you asked for three only. I, like Abrazzar, could add way more than 3. These however will do as my top three. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.02 11:59:00 - [817] Lowsec Nullsec should have a delayed local. In high sec local is fine as it is, and should stay so for wartargets and new players. But in 0.4 and below it should be all men for themselfs. If you jumped into criminal space would you be having your radio blasting so everybody can find you, or would you be in silent mode? Nobody should know your there right off the bat. This would make hunting more intresting. And not a automatic lets let the blobs of pirates come to kill me message. Blobs win. Solo people are left out? It was a good idea to do this for W-Space but K-Space needs it, atleast in 0.4 and below. PS: Armor needs a boost, to balance it with passive shields, we need a passive armor solution that works in a similar way. Buffer tanks need to beable to be regeneratable on their own with nanobots, like shields have regeneration at the expense of cap. The same consept could be applied to armor, and instead of regeneration ENM's giving a bonus to armor HP they could actoualy do that they say and regenerate armor hp, just chance the bonuses around and allow them to be put in mid slots and low slots. This would balance things out quite well if the bonuses are equal to SPR's at the highest. Also nanobot injectors would be nice. To have reserve boost in armor regeneration with some kind of tanks like this. To also combat the 0 cap issue armor tanks have. Shields are lightyears ahead of armor when it comes to self repair. Armor should beable to repair itself with no cap because nanobots do all the repairing. Armor plates need powergrid and cpu? Its metal plates! It should have 0 powergrid and cpu. Only mass and speed of a ship should be used. It makes no sense armor plates require powergrid or cpu at all. What are you doing pumping energy into your armor? Battleships of the navy today don't use CPU or powergrid on 2ft thick of steel on their boats they only use bigger engines to prepel the weight in water. But this is space, weight doesn't exist in vacuum , only mass, friction between atoms at high speeds, and such. It would only effect a ships agility and acceleration speed. If a 1600mm plate was put on a frigate, it should be pretty slow to accelerate and turn because of the denser mass. More HP could also be a fast anser to balancing shield tanked frigates. I can get a jagur to 5000 shield and a 200 DPS tank with high resistances. Whats wrong with this picture, armor can't have a 200 DPS tank and 5000 hp on armor. Maybe a 50 DPS tank. But that uses cap and a jagur doesn't and can regen very quick. It effectivly has the tank of a battle cruiser with its very small sig radius. But that'd be fine if armor could do the same. Would be nice to have armor on the same level as shields. This has been a issue for years. This is why I have trained a lot through shields after I have been with armor for a year. I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed.
The Alchemist Enterprise Estonia Cult of War	Posted - 2009.05.02 12:42:00 - [818] 1. Blasters need Buff 2. Webs are over nerfed 3. Large Artyes are Bad ...
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2009.05.02 16:12:00 - [819] 1) Lowsec. There's not many reasons to be in lowsec. There's very little there that makes you more money than being in highsec, you have to deal with pirates, and if you try to live there and defend yourself you quickly lose access to highsec. 2) The Naglfar, and to a lesser extent the Phoenix, suck utterly. Crappy damage, the citadel explosion velocity issue, the problem of split weapons and missile lag, and the fact that they have no real field where they're better than the Revelation and Moros. Not the only ship balance issue, but the most glaring. 3) T2 ammo. Spike/Tremor/Aurora is just fine, Scorch/Barrage(but not Null) and Javelin missiles are useful, but Void/Conflag/Hail and Javelin/Gleam/Quake are utter crap. Faction ammo has the "Same, but more damage" role covered, give T2 ammo a more specific role - range works well(at least, when you're not trying to give a token range boost to blasters), and so would things like tracking. Those aren't the three biggest issues with the game(that'd be the UI, sovereignty, and lowsec), but they are the three biggest I can think of that could probably be fixed with simple number tweaks.
Hanns Amarr Secret Service	Posted - 2009.05.02 23:41:00 - [820] 1) Rockets 2) Rockets 3) Did i mention rockets? Cmon CCP rockets suck a fat one, there supposed to be high damage alternate to standard missiles but are bearly any better! Originally by: Tuxford a new retribution bonus +1 med slot per level

aevistyne Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Doctrine.	Posted - 2009.05.03 07:09:00 - [821] 1. Tempest - outside of a fleet sniping role there is no reason to use this ship really 2. Artillery in general, especially large/Xlarge 3. Minmatar caps: Nidhoggur is fine for the most part, though it needs more cap/faster recharge. Naglfar however has both pathetic dps and a terrible tank, see the thread in the assembly hall for all the numbers. It either needs more directed weapons bonuses, since the fact that it has weapon slots is countered by the split weapons bonus, and fix the slot layout so that its either an armor tank or a shield tank, not really bad at both. If shield tank, fix the cpu so that co processors arent needed for a full tank fit. ------- EvE +NLINE - T+TALHELLDEATH SUPPORTER
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.03 09:46:00 - [822] Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/05/2009 09:50:39 1. Rigs need to come in frigate and cruiser sized variations using proportionally fewer components to build, as was hinted at in the past. T1 rigs are almost too expensive to be worth using on battlecruisers as it stands now. 2. Artillery needs 50% higher optimal range, increased volley and decreased ROF. 3. Scorpion hull needs a left wing. It looks completely unbalanced without one. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Ahura Dracul	Posted - 2009.05.03 12:18:00 - [823] 1: Many smaller amarr laser ships. Omen, Maller, Retribution, Coercer... 2: Wardec costs are too low 3: local at lowsec/0.0 needs delay, change it into constellation chat or remove it
KissedByDeath	Posted - 2009.05.03 22:35:00 - [824] 1) improve other ewar drones. Basically remove stacking penalties. and re/introduce medium webbing drones 2) improve caldari ships in general (they have weakest sensor strength, are the slowest except crow of course). 3) fix Blackbird, Scorp, Kitsune - After the SDA changes they have lower jamming strength and didn't get compensated as the falcon & rook did. And ffs give falcon 25m3 drone space 10 is just a joke
Merroki	Posted - 2009.05.04 08:16:00 - [825] Edited by: Merroki on 04/05/2009 08:16:33 1. Fix Shield Buffer Tanking (not referring to passive regen tanks). Where are the XL shield extenders (+4k shield hitpoints?), the supposed equivalent to 1600mm armor plates (+4k armor hitpoints)? At the moment, PVP favors buffer tanks, as it is both resistant to cap warfare and less disadvantaged in fights bigger than 1v1 (high incoming DPS), even if disregarding the choice between mid/low slot usage. Since shields have no 1600mm plate equivalent, armor tanking is automatically favored in fleets. I would like to see shield and armor tanking be equally viable in fleets. If the lack of XL is due to concern for passive regen, then how about an XL Extender with a shield regen penalty? I don't really see the big deal with passive regen tanked battleships if there are passive regen tanked battlecruisers. Besides, you'd have to be using up all your mid/low slots if you want to regen tank, slots that could potentially have web/scram/mwd/ab/damagemods/etc. 2. Explosion Radius Bonus for Stealth Bombers would really help to restore it's viability and fun factor in PVE. This will not impact their battleship killing capability, but as it stands, it's really only any good for killing battleships, and maybe battlecruisers. The new incarnation of bombers is useless in pvp outside of the gang/fleet scenario, as 1 vs Any = lose. That basically rules it out for being someone's primary ship, as it was mine pre-Apoc-1.1. Surely, we don't want people to start using bomber alts (to log in for that one specific scenario that calls for it)? I've personally flown a bomber as my primary ship for the better part of a year, for ratting and general missioning (because it is a ton of fun, not because I can do it faster than if I used a golem), and occasional PVP. While being able to take down battleships better is cool, and warping in cloaked has strategical fleet use, Being mostly ineffective in most situations (vs frigates, cruisers) in empire space, is rather boring, and absolutely crippling for ratting and missions (Good luck killing that tackling elite frigate at 2-5 DPS in your mission.. ZZzzzzzz). Bigger ships get around this because they have drone bays. Bombers used to get around this with the explosion radius bonus, and Guided Missile Precision or Rigs(which do not work on torps, making it worse). I recognize a lot of people are in 0.0 where caps and battleships rule the day, but not everyone is. All ships should be generally serviceable imo, but with different strengths. Most ships are. Bombers aren't, as of Apocrypha 1.1. Add an explosion radius bonus, not necessarily -16.66%, please. 3. Stealth bombers badly need more cargo hold, now that their cruise launchers have been swapped for torps, and torps take up twice the space. This is less of an issue if you fleet blob bombers and occasionally gank, and don't really use up that many torps, but as noted above, not everyone is interested in camping a gate 23/7, waiting for a lone battleship to wander on through, or what have you. Originally by: Alxea If a 1600mm plate was put on a frigate, it should be pretty slow to accelerate and turn because of the denser mass. More HP could also be a fast anser to balancing shield tanked frigates. I can get a jagur to 5000 shield and a 200 DPS tank with high resistances. I think if a 1600mm plate were put on a frigate, the frigate should have a top speed of about 10m/s :P If anything, compare plate mass with thrust, even when AB/MWD is off. Originally by: Alxea I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed. If you mean 800 DPS passive tanked, don't forget to take into account that 800 DPS only happens at roughly 1/3 shield, and you probably just got a massive sig radius penalty that will probably more than negate the puny 100 DPS difference.
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.04 09:14:00 - [826] Originally by: Tres Farmer Edited by: Tres Farmer on 02/05/2009 02:35:43 . 1) undocking in a system is unbalanced compared to jumping into a system explanation see here: Why is undocking more dangerous than jumping...? If I would - up on undocking - end in the same situation I end up jumping into a system I wouldn't complain. But when I apply current undocking-mechanics to jumping into another system, I get this: you always appear in the same spot at the gate you decloak instantaneous you wouldn't be allowed to jump back for ~20 secs Who in his right mind would still travel around in low/null under such conditions? This mechanic simply would destroy most of travel down there.. I Should disagree. When u undocking if u are doing nothing u are invulnerable for 30 seconds and after that u can easily dock back if docking range is big enough. THe only thing some smaller stations should have bigger dock range. ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Tibi Zoners	Posted - 2009.05.04 10:24:00 - [827] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day Where? *
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.05.04 18:31:00 - [828] Edited by: Vall Kor on 04/05/2009 18:32:01 1. Auto cannons/Arties. and T2 Ammo - Needs some love 2. Re-think the missile nerf 3. Look at SOV mechanics.... POS busting/spamming is not fun in anyway.
Onerous One	Posted - 2009.05.04 21:24:00 - [829] 1) The Falcon lost its launcher hardpoints and received a hybrid turret bonus because Ishukone doesn't build missile ships. The Buzzard is made by Ishukone and has missile bonuses and more launcher hardpoints than turret. This is not consistent with Ishukone ship design. 2) Harpy, Vulture and Eagle are all Ishukone ships each with two hybrid turret optimal range bonuses. Falcon has no ECM or hybrid turret optimal range bonuses. The Falcon is the only Ishukone ship without optimal range bonuses. This is not consistent with Ishukone ship design. 3) Falcon has a 120-150km targeting range but neither its ECM or hybrid turrets can reach even half that distance. From the Falcon description: Quote: Most of the recent designs off their assembly line have provided for a combination that the Ishukone name is becoming known for: great long-range capabilities and shield systems unmatched anywhere else. The Falcon has no range or shield bonuses. It has great long-range targeting but no bonuses to utilize that range. This is NOT consistent with Ishukone ship design.
Random Womble Minmatar Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords	Posted - 2009.05.05 02:07:00 - [830] Edited by: Random Womble on 05/05/2009 02:09:01 1. Copied from above: Boost Minmatar and Gallente recons (give Rapier/huginn a web strengh bonus and increase the damp bonus on Arazu/Lachesis) + pilgrim needs to be boosted 2. Faction Guns vs T2 3. Faction Ships (PG/CPU slots, bonuses the works)

The WitchDoctor Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:48:00 - [831] 1. Interdictors Signature radius is to big. Heretic and Flycatcher could use 1 extra missile slot. Eris needs a compleet revamp(hybrid turret interdictor would be nice) 2. Rockets They suck, enough said. 3. 'Combat'-commandships They are very expensive however are outperformed by a tier 1 bs that will cost less. They have their plusses however they do not make up for the huge cost.
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:16:00 - [832] 1. Buff medium and large blasters (or dedicated blaster ships) CCP balancers seem to have overlooked 90% webifiers were originally designed to enable blaster ships to track targets at their abysmal short range. Agreed, the webifier nerf was needed to make smaller ships usable and is welcomed by most people, myself included, but blasters (tracking/dps) were never re-balanced to compensate. Blasterships were not classed as overpowered before the web nerf, blasters are supposed to be the most feared short range weapons ingame, please fix them. 2. T2 Ammo Re-balance T2 ammo to make it an alternative to faction ammo, and remove the rediculous stacking penalties especially the short range varieties. 3. Large Projectiles (Mainly artillery) Increase artillery alpha.
Rahjadan Shardur Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:22:00 - [833] 1. Many T1 Ships form Frigats to tier1 BC are out of ballance or useless. Remove the tier system and Buff the majority of T1 ships to be in the same leage as the working ones (Rifter or Punisher for Frigs, or Thorax for Cruisers). 2. Rockets has been mentioned, has it? 3. Reballance T1 ships, this will help alot of the newer players and seems to be consistent with the path EVE takes right now. All Frigs should be flyable with raceFrig to level 1 and additional level sould only bring more bonusses, same for cruisers. Revise the bonuses: For example the Rapture is the only ship of its class with only 4 turrets where all the other ones have 5 (Thorax, Maller, Moa). Noone complains because the ship works, but it's still out of ballance. A ship with a dubble dmg bonus should do the most damage, however the most damage should also be done by the balster boats. so give the Rupture another gunport and more grid but remove the Damage bonus. The damage stays the same (at level 5, will be a bit more at the lower levels) but the ship can now have a bonus that realy helps as a gunship and sets it apart, like tracking, falloff or range. This is an example and should be done with alot of ships i just mentioned it because it's not that aparent for seemingly working ships. ------------------ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)
Sanguinem Amarr	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:32:00 - [834] 1. Please add more Nullsec Systems. This game gets smaller every day with all the people that are now playing. Sorry, you made a popular game. Time to expand the universe 2. 4th bonus on Assault Frigate. And while you're putting on bonuses, make it a 5% bonus to missile damage on the Hawk, perhaps? 3. Rocket/Missile Damage Buff. ------------------------------------------------------- Dude, your chin... My favorite quote ever, and if you know which thread this came from, you know what I'm talking about!
Reptzo Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2009.05.06 20:26:00 - [835] Originally by: Tibi Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Xelios So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads? Aye. By the end of the day Where? Yes, where are these discussion threads? So much for "end of the day".
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 00:09:00 - [836] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/05/2009 00:10:49 Originally by: Reptzo Yes, where are these discussion threads? So much for "end of the day". Threads: - ECM Drones - Naglfar - Citadel Torps (Nag thread) - 0.0 Mechanics (Nag thread, somewhat. New thread forthcoming... someday) I dunno, I don't see them flinching from the issues so much as simply going really slow about it. It's still alot faster/better changes than we've seen in a lloooonnngg time. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Janeth Veris	Posted - 2009.05.07 08:00:00 - [837] 1) Low-sec The additional BS spawns was a good start but I think it needs a little more work. Maybe a slight increase in faction loot available or something? 2) Projectiles Maybe a small increase in damage multiplier. tech2 ammo could use some reworking. But most importantly the way falloff works should be reworked. 3) lvl 4 missions and pve I agree mostly that lvl 4 mission rewards is overpowering in relationship to almost everything else in hi-sec. One of my first suggestions would be to remove tech1 loot drops, and decrease named loot drops in general in missions. Loot drops from lvl 4 missions should not be able to compete with miners in terms of minerals! In general the ideas to make pve slightly more like pvp is something that sounds positive! 4) Minmatar BS's 5) 0.0 I heard rumours about reworking 0.0 soverienty, I think alot of people wil be happy. 6) balance EWAR ok so ECM is good and everybody loves it. (is almost completely overpowering against smaller ships) dampeners are weaker but somewhat usefull. tracking disruptors are good enough. Target painting can use a buff as currently most minmatar ships with TP bonusses are a waste of time in most situations. 99% of the time TPs are largely enferior to Webs.. so maybe nerf webs. That wil also make AB's worth more. One thing that could help balance EWAR is to maybe change how it stacks. ECM - make cycles shorter so that jamming is more intermittent - this wil probably balance it enough.
Murbella Venturi	Posted - 2009.05.08 00:53:00 - [838] Rockets blow chunks.
Esbear Minmatar Exotic dancer training club	Posted - 2009.05.08 09:28:00 - [839] 1. Projectile artillery, no need to clarify. Enough has been said about the subject. 2. T2 ammo. Some need work, the high damage short range ones. The others are fine as they are. 3. POS moon income and T2 building materials. As it is now there is no real viable way for small alliances or even corporations to either take or let alone keep a high end moon. Any major alliance might just come and remove it from your hands. There is little you can viably do to take it. This makes it hard, maybe too hard to try and take them by force. Major alliances therefore have a "free" high income with very little work. This is the imbalance I would like to address. But considering fixed moon output and increasing demand due to a growing player base I also fear T2 prices might be in for increased inflation. At the moment I do not yet see T3 production being able to replace that. Player income, especially for newer players I do not see rising with it. One solution might be to regularly change moon minerals on every moon as new deposits are found and old ones are depleted. This could be combined with an increase in output in order to "fix" prices on a decent level. It would also be virtually impossible then for any (group of) alliances to fix the T2 materials market prices. A change like this will make it viable for small corp and alliances to search for high end moons and to set up their own production. To promote use of low sec I would level the chance of all materials, including high end, to spawn equal in null and low sec. One danger that needs to be addressed then is pos spamming of entire constellations in order to "claim" moons. Destruction of unfueled and offlined pos looks like a nice solution as they crash into the moon due to a lack of fuel for maneuvering.
Guru Saurfang Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.08 09:30:00 - [840] Edited by: Guru Saurfang on 08/05/2009 09:33:21 1.Give some love for the Artillery . Better Alpha? Can you count the scenarios that the arty alpha matter now? 2.T2 ammo 3.Give value to low sec.

Kirmok Foyu Trading World	Posted - 2009.05.08 09:37:00 - [841] 1) Projectile Turrents - DPS is weak, and tracking should be slightly better. 1a) Artillery could fire faster or do more salvo damage. 1b) Auto's are ALWAYS fighting in falloff, where their damage diminishes greatly 1c) I love them otherwise :-) 2) Missles in PvP - not very useful in pvp, RoF is low enough to make them weaker then turrents when taking into account the flight times too. 2a) People can warp away before cruise missles even hit, negating their salvo damage completely 2b) Caldari kinetic missle bonuses are cookie-cutter. Personally I think a 5% or even 3% bonus to all missle damage types would fit Caldari ships better 2c) A large turrent fit ship can pop a frigate at long range as long as there's low/null transversal, yet a cruise missle doesn't to much to a frigate, at any range. 3) Tech 1 Stuff - In the current state of the game, the Tech I basic stuff is almost entirely used in order to make tech2 stuff. 3a) There needs to be a reason to fit a basic tech1 item in the game, maybe make the pg/cpu requirements a little lower?
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.08 15:56:00 - [842] 1.Gallente T3 needs a boost to drone bandwidth and drone bay. It needs to be brought in line with with its blaster subs witch do way more DPS then 4 heavy drones and 3 guns. Infact, just take off the guns on the drone subsystem and give it a bandwidth for 25bw so we can fit 5 heavy drones. Who the hell uses guns when they are drone dedicated? Specialize in drones... Nobody puts guns on a drone boat. Maybe this can be fixed in a 5th subsystem where a electronics sub can give 5bw per level or something, with more drone bonuses. Plus its a 2bill isk ship. The day it becomes as cheap as a ishtar is never going to happen, it needs to be better then a ishtar or the whole dedicated T3 drone boat fails. And why does T3 have a heat stacking peniltie with mods? Its T3... 2.Armor needs to become regenrative. To be in line with passive shields. Armor is so underpowered because it uses cap to regenerate. Shields don't need cap at all and can't be countered only with more DPS it can tank. Know anybody who can put down 1500 DPS on a every day pvp BS? Thats near maxed skills and no tank. Shields on a drake can out class the tank on any T1 BS, Same with a Rokh. Energy neut them no prob they will tank you all day and ones with missiles will just keep fireing. Armor can't do this, they can't even get half the tanks, and with no cap you have no regeneration, you die fast even with a buffer tank. There is almost no difference between the buffer tank on a shield and a armor tank only a shield gets like on a night hawk or a vulture 100,000 EHP and 1500 DPS tank, you get 100,000 EHP and 0 DPS tank when you have no cap on a gallente command ship oh and your ship becomes useless since you can't shoot anything. A Curse can kill the fallowing, all gallente, all amarr ships but the rocket and HAM missile based ships, all active tanked ships. And this is solo, a speed tanked curse with 4 neuts can be perma runed and cap drain about 1500 every cicle. So should I fly that cus its a automatic win buttion agenst most ships? Once cap is gone you die a slow death. No, I just fly a passive ishtar. Isn't that funny how I have nearly a 1000 DPS tank and the damage of a domi? It appears armor really needs to be fixed or ccp just intended to have a ishtar be the perfect drone bunker in a gate camp for firepower support with a passive shield on it. Its even DD proof. With a armor tank its not possible to even put a tank on this any were close to a passive shield. So it seems a armor revamp is in dire need of consitering. Surly T3 is the anser and has the key. Funny how T3 has nanobots filled to the teeth in the hulls armor but can't self repair on its own. Would be nice to see armor boosted to be in line with shields. 3.T2 ammo needs a boost, because faction ammo is better, regardless of my specialization in T2 ammo?! Hows it specialized if faction ammo out damages it and has no penilties. Get rid of the penilties or put more specialization skills into T2. Its been said many times in here T2 ammo is underpowered. Not sure why faction ammo is so overpowered and easy to get in the 1st place.
Robot Robot	Posted - 2009.05.08 16:09:00 - [843] I've only been playing for a few months, and my top three have already been mentioned by a number of people, but i'll add to the chorus line. The first two both have to do with increasing variation in T1 fittings that people actually fly. 1) Rebalance named/un-named t1 modules. Particularly, I think there should be a more or less steady progression from low-fitting-requirements/low-power to high-fitting-requirements/high-power with the base T1 module somewhere in between. Taking Standard Launchers as an example, if the Meta 0 launcher requires 25 cpu with a Duration of 15, then maybe Meta 1 could require 23 CPU with Duration 16, Meta 2 could be CPU 20/Dur 16, Meta 3 could be CPU 26/Dur 13.5 and Meta 4 could be CPU 28/Dur 12. Suddenly there would be situations in which any of them could be useful depending on your fitting requirements and the T1 standard becomes a solid middle-of-the-road module. Meta 4 will almost certainly still be the most coveted and thus most expensive (as evidenced by Gyrostabilizer prices, where this model is mostly already followed), but they won't completely obsolete the other flavours of the module. Combining this with a simultaneous elimination of T1 standard gear from NPC drop tables, as has been suggested many times elsewhere, would also result in a huge buff to T1 manufacturing. 2) Rebalance of T1 ships. The tier system is a little silly. Everyone can fly tier 3 frigates by their second day and that leaves a bunch of ships that there is no real reason to ever fly. Taking minmatar as an example: Burst: Has a role, i guess. Probe: Astrometrics frigates are fine Vigil: Would maybe be okay if target painters were better. Slasher: This is the problem. Why would anyone fly this ship? Breacher: Tier 3 but ditto. Rifter: Is fine. So we have six frigates, three of which are direct combat ships, but only one of which anyone would ever use after their first day. Slasher and Breacher both need to be buffed to be competitive with the rifter, albeit in different roles. With the Slasher, it might be as simple as giving it a third turret mount and a slight boost to base velocity. The Breacher is a more complicated beast, but I'm sure something can be done. The situation is just as bad with cruisers and, though i don't fly battleships, i suspect it exists there as well. Basically, both of these suggestions amount to moving away from the idea of having anything in the game that is flat out better in every way than something else designed for the same task. and for a third wish: Fix the major known bugs with the scanning interface that were introduced with apocrypha 1.1 (huge lag when probes are moving, unusably opaque and busy scanning bubble, probe moving widgets only appear about half the time and you have to deactivate and reactivate the probe to get them back, filters don't work, when three probes overlap a hit only one dot appears on screen instead of two)
Shana Lioni Destructive Influence KenZoku	Posted - 2009.05.08 16:29:00 - [844] 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. 2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty. 3)Better Network response times to TQ from USA WestCoast.
Nichola Kreed	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:04:00 - [845] Originally by: Shana Lioni 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. 2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty. 3)Better Network response times to TQ from USA WestCoast. funny thing is kenny never whine about those stuff when you hold space,
Onizuka GTO Caldari Macross crp.	Posted - 2009.05.08 23:24:00 - [846] 1.Rockets It's Broken 2.Missiles It's Broken 3.Stealth Bomber You Broke it 4.Black Op Jump Bridge It's still broken ==== Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death.Good Luck
place1 Amarr Orion Ore Industries	Posted - 2009.05.09 07:48:00 - [847] 1. Sov 2. Assult Frigs 3. T2 Ammo (DONT NERF FACTION AMMO)
Verys The Black Ops Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.09 11:22:00 - [848] 1. T2 invention 2. W-space 3. Missiles overall Explanation: 1. T2 invention is in some cases not worth while which is annoying and its all due to people owning t2 bpo's so they can control a set price (just so t2 inventors can't make a profit), the system is broken as a whole and it needs a desperate fix so that not only the people with billions of isk can participate. 2. Wormhole space is very doable when we talk about class 1,2,3,4 and 5 is still manageable (although hard). But above 6 it's just gets odd you need remote repping gangs of 30+ Battleships and I don't think there are many people who take capitals into this space (being afraid of losing them for not much of a reward and being able to be ganked by gangs roaming about.) Also it would be nice to make wormhole exits stand out a little bit so you don't scan 20 plexes down before you finally find the exit signal. 3. Missile have a really hard time catching up with ships which are bigger than the missile which feels odd and makes for stupid gameplay. Anything with an afterburner can easily avoid missiles now and missiles aren't the best weapons around anyway. Either make them more in par with guns (tracking) or boost them over guns again to make up for the travel time (non-existent alpha).
PanKrolik	Posted - 2009.05.09 19:10:00 - [849] Mission imbalace could be changed by removing those t1 and replacing it with some sort of precious loot that could be sold to npc. Low sec and null sec npc would drop more of it because pirates would feel safer soo they whould have larger part of their personal wealth stuffed on their ships instead in a hidden stash. Certainly there are hundreds of thousants of different rare goods that exists in very limited supply. Items that aren't usefull for capsulers for various reasons.(Acquired only from planets surface, too time consuming or trublesome for immortals to bother with etc.) There could be various kinds of it like for example. Normal loot "insert name" alloy bars Extremly flexible but dificult to manufacture. Used for various aplications in planet surface construction. Rare loot uncut "insert name" gems Can be found only just barely under surface of asteroids. Due to very fragile nature it can be only harvested manualy. Then it must pass throu a porcess of cuting and molecular rearangment to make it less fragile. Usualy 9 out of 10 are destroyed in the process. Remaining 10% make what citizens of eve consider most precious jewel in the universe. Unique loot "Insert name" manuscript "insert name" was an ammarian preacher living during Minmatar rebellion. Most of his works are belived to be lost during the uprising. Some sources claim that when a group of slaves stole his personal ship they also took some of his manuscripts he stored in it. Those manuscripts surface on market from time to time. Most of them are fakes but this one appears to be one of the orginals. Ammarians or Minmatars would be wiling to pay a lot for it. First to study it, second to anger the first. Faction loot Sansha medical equipment Sansha nation medical care is still considered to be very advanced. Some experts belive that in fields like neurosurgery or psychiatry they surpass even the jove. While their treatments are usualy very painfull or even considered inhuman it is a last hope for many. Unfortunatly they reqire Sansha's medical equiplent and drugs. So far efforts to copy the technology meet with only a limited success. The loot market could be constelation based and prices would be based on amount of loot sold. It would be necessary to add random patern shift. It would prevent peoples hauling loot to best price location and seling it immediatly after dt to get best possible price. It would also simulate changes in demand besed on trends. In mission hubs prices would be lower. Soo players would have either sell it somewhere else or sell it to a player that would haul them to a different part of eve. There could be also oportunity for industrialists to process some of those loot items to get a better price. Like "insert name" uncut gems-> "insert name" gem -> "insert name" gem jewelry. Some races would be wiling to pay more for certain loot types mosty ones that could be difficult to get in their own space. Some could be faction warfare based. Like for example some kind of compound droped mostly by caladari faction ships that is used in "top secret" process of making navy missiles. Gallente would be wiling to buy them of capsulers even if they have no use for it themself. Perfect oportunity for raid FW missions when militia could raid other faction facilites to steal materials critical for enemies war efort and make some chunk of extra isk in the process.
Enden Assulu Caldari Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.10 11:36:00 - [850] There is no such thing as balancing when CCP is doing it. It is just whack it with a nerf bat and move on, please don't touch anything in the game without a lot of though. kthxbai

Spurty Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.05.11 01:56:00 - [851] 1. t2 ammo, drop minuses 2. Missiles lolz 3. Drones. Look at the specs on them, I'd LOVE to fly a drone please! Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thus I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:58:00 - [852] 1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well. 2) Some rigs are utterly useless, while others are begging to be invented. E.g. for fail rigs - Liquid cooled electronics I/II. E.g. for a rig begging to be born - The equivalent to the Ancillary current router I/II for electronics (i.e. +10% to CPU output). 3) Some rigs definitely need re-balancing, some in favor while others might need a nerf. E.g. for a rig to be boosted: Engine thermal shielding I/II - They might've been in use if not for the awful armor drawback. Obviously this is a rig for smallish ships (I don't see any BS pilot putting this rig on ever) and the penalty alongside the price tag makes it virtually redundant - not more than an eye candy for an inflated database. Insert clever remark where??
Dru Maal	Posted - 2009.05.12 00:52:00 - [853] 1 balance ewar 2 balance projectile weapons 3 take a look on T2 amunition. bye
Veebora Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.12 02:45:00 - [854] 1 - Minmatar ships - The split weapons system plus projectile low DPS makes it the underdog. 2 - Projectile Weapons. 3 - Minmatar captals.
telorian bonapart	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:18:00 - [855] 1. T2 ammo compared to faction ammo 2. insurance should be based on the market value of the ship 3. the shield tank vs. armor tank is perfectly fine but maybe there should be a way to passively armor tank, that is the only thing that I see that shield tanking has over tanking has over armor
Tekki Sandan Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:46:00 - [856] Edited by: Tekki Sandan on 12/05/2009 03:47:49 Originally by: McEivalley 1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well. I hate that crap. If you spend more money on a ship you SHOULD have an advantage!! its like low SP pilots "aww thats not fair we dont have a chance with the older guys" yes thats because they spent more time skill training for it to be so. 1. Motherships 2. Titans shouldnt be stuck to racial doomsdays 3. Nano - Speed tanking has been killed. It was ment to be there dont remove it because of the whino's.
Maicman Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.05.12 07:15:00 - [857] 1.Artillery needs to be revised. Alpha damage is more like delta damage now days. 2.T2 ammo (specially short range/high damage). Faction ammo is better (donÆt nerf it) 3.The Caldari recon nerf seemed to be executed in a coffee break. From the typos in a new description to the wired bonuses and the other inconsistencies, was a poor executed exercise. Tune the nerf hammer.
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.05.12 09:26:00 - [858] 1. T2 short range ammo needs a buff. 2. Tempest/Large AC's. A double damage bonus ship with poor damage? 3. Low sec rats needs another buff as the last one hasn't had meaningful impact to the level of low sec activity.
Galan Undris	Posted - 2009.05.12 12:53:00 - [859] 1. BS sized projectiles, esp. artillery have issues. Smaller ones work, but could use some differentiation between tiers ((i.e difference between 220s and 180s is very small) 2. "Mandatoryness" of Cap Injectors on certain larger ships, ability to run "everything" with a single module. 3. Supercaps (Titans)
Haldir Ravenclaw Tenacious Tendencies	Posted - 2009.05.12 13:15:00 - [860] 1. Sensor dampeners. A joke compared to other forms of e-war (because of Falcon! ) 2. Blasters. See the million or so threads about blasters needing a change/buff. 3. Drones as a (optional) primary weapon. Needs things like T2/faction drone mods, proper faction drones, drone implants and new drone modules (eg a low slot item like a mag stab but increases drone damage) etc. More issues I could put down, but limited to 3 for now --- We want T2/Faction drone modules!

Cutty Carebear	Posted - 2009.05.12 16:00:00 - [861] 1/ Motherships (nothing can be done better then carriers) 2/ ****in Motherships (useless E-peen ship ever) 3/ Damn Motherships (aka, i cost 12b for nothing.)
Hagis McBree Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.12 23:20:00 - [862] 1 - Minmatar ships larger than a Battle Cruiser, the tear 1 BS Typhoon needs more skill points to fly than some capitol ships, tear 2 BS Tempest has bad DPS for a for a duel damage bonus ship. Tear 3 Maelstrom ... shield tank.... what is up with that.. and I'm not getting into the Capital ship debate, people must think all Minmatar are skitzo, with all the weapon systems and tanking systems they have to learn.. 2 - Projectile Weapons//All T2 ammo.. lets keep beating this dead horse? 3 - Rigs, lets have Small/Medium/Large/XLarge rigs, as it stands it cost the same to rig a frigate as it does a battle ship.. kinda unbalanced.
Wrann Caldari V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 00:44:00 - [863] 1. Insurance for ships should pay out market value. I'm tired of getting bupkiss for a ship I paid 600m for because the Insurance doesn't properly calculate the value of a ship. 2. Large Arty has very few charges in the tubes. I do less damage in my Mael because I'm constantly reloading. 3. Missiles need a slightly positive bump so that they will actually hit a target if it's moving. Doesn't have to be much... just a little.
Thaer Deathor	Posted - 2009.05.13 01:01:00 - [864] 1. Sovereignty warefare - near impossible for small alliances/corps to take space against 0.0 giant alliances. 2. Gallente/Minmatar issues - Artilery sucks, give it extra alpha, and a little more dps - Blasters need a few hugs in the tracking department, same with small rails. - This isnt gallente or minmatar but rockets blow really bad, they should fire 3 at once with the same reactivation timer that they currently have - Dampners are horrible and barely do anything - Ecm is too strong, and is extremely frustrating nerf bat it 3. Interceptors - They arent ballenced very well, with the Taranis easily being the best.
n1con Caldari Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.05.13 17:10:00 - [865] Edited by: n1con on 13/05/2009 17:12:55 I think the following need looking at: 1. Missiles 2. Missiles 3. AF I have listed missiles twice because they are that bad. We have yet another weapons system which is completely laughable in PVP. I love missile but due to how bad they have become I have given up any hope of actually making them workable and started to train hybrids
Neu Bastian Minmatar Valklear Guard	Posted - 2009.05.14 00:18:00 - [866] 1)CCP's Nerfbat is in dire need of balancing. 2) see 1. 3) see 1 and 2. Quote: Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.14 16:42:00 - [867] Hey, uh, so... now that we got a patch in with some of the fruits of this thread, can we get to the meatier issues? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
L0nz0p Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:33:00 - [868] 1) rockets, almost useless rather than going on the killboard "weee i shooted something" 2) missiles in general (cerberus taking dust in my hangar)
Taudia Gallente Sane Industries Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:11:00 - [869] 1) Mining in general. I know this has been talked about a lot but mining has severe issues which I think need to be addressed. Namely the lack interaction needed and the imbalance of tritanium with regard to low sec and 0.0 ores. I realize it is CCP's policy to never balance anything with cost, but to my mind the problem with tritanium is that it is needed to make just about anything and the best way to get it is veldspar. An immediate solution to this would be to just make some ore in lo1-sec/0.0 that yields more trit than veld, but that would be a rather crude solution, however going the other way around, lowering the trit needed to produce a subset of all the items in eve, strikes me as even more crude. Of course, if my assumption that the unexpected amount of caps being employed in eve atm is the culprit in the price of trit, this could well be solved indirectly in that capital ship revamp I am hearing things about these days. 2) Turrets/missiles across the board pretty much, especially with regard to t2 ammo. Pulse lasers hold the field with regard to pure efficiency due to scorch. Besides the aforementioned scorch, faction variants of ammo are usually employed instead of the t2 variant, as they most often reach approximate dps without the horrid drawbacks (25% reduction to tracking using void ammo is a good way to kill the only vantage blasters have). Missiles are just unreliable and subpar dps at current. 3) Target painters, sensor damps and tracking disruptors currently make little to no sense to fit on ships that do not specifically have bonuses to them. Of course, the same is the case with ECM, but that is actually useful when you fit it to a ship with a bonus ^^
Dart Sirius	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:45:00 - [870] 1. SOV 2. SOV 3. SOV Make the core 0.0 warfare more fun not just shooting and repping like 40 POS / system very rarely have a real fleet fight. I dont care about losing lot of ships or anything i just dont want to warp to POS hit F1 wait like 1 hour then warp to next its not FUN at all...

Cash Loki	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:49:00 - [871] 1. Missles need a boost 2. Bring back nano, and a very good well known counter 3. CCP, play the game and put your heart in it and always remember that its pvp first, and Im talking space ships pew pewing each other. I own three accounts and it was that youre never safe feeling that caught my attention.
Grasfer Minmatar FinFleet KenZoku	Posted - 2009.05.15 11:17:00 - [872] 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. 2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty. Just make it more fun and active, i think EvE is the only game i have to play other games at the same time not to get bored. 3)Minmatar ships and weapons. (or just nerf amarr down to minmatar level) :)
thoth rothschild Strategic Solutions Ltd. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.05.15 11:28:00 - [873] 1) Blaster tracking is terrible and/or bugged 2) Black Ops is even more terrible 3) Racial balance fleet command ships, recon ships. Amarr looks great...
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.05.15 12:32:00 - [874] Originally by: Grasfer 1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat. Again? Kenzoku never complained when they weren't on the receiving end and held Delve. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.05.15 18:07:00 - [875] Edited by: The Mittani on 15/05/2009 18:08:45 greetings gentlemen i am a mitten! i have only recently begun bothering to think about game design! here is a simple solution to a problem which will require very little code changes and make a chunk of your playerbase happy! assault frigates are terrible and only useful for pve, yet they have a lot of sex appeal to newbies as they are the 'first' t2 ship which many newbies ever get. now that stealth bombers have been adjusted, assault frigates are at the bottom of the barrel of 'most laughably terrible ship class', yet the assault frigates have very cool-looking models: rifter, punishers, incursi and merlins (merlins are not actually cool looking but w/e) for some reason you nerfed this already terrible-for-pvp shipclass a while ago, making their sig radius larger and making them slower. this was no doubt in reply to the massive outcry in the playerbase about these extremely dangerous ships! anyway enough preamble are you ready here is a minor tweak to help claw AF's back from the brink of complete pvp uselessness: 1. move 1 retribution highslot to a midslot, making it 4/2/5. that's it! baby steps, let's not try to make grand sweeping changes to the entire class but just tweak the 'most useless in pvp' ship of the class - as it lacks a midslot beyond prop mod - and make it useful outside of pve! a whole new role, with a second midslot it can scramble something or fit a targ. comp the retribution looks like a cool ship so it's a crying shame that it is terrible and useless in pvp and this swap would require no changes to the model, just the removal of the utility slot in the highs hth (hope this helps)
Nostredeus Morphius Minmatar Beyond Transcendence	Posted - 2009.05.16 15:01:00 - [876] Edited by: Nostredeus Morphius on 16/05/2009 15:02:30 1) Projectile weapons and T2 ammo (all Arts and Large ac's [maybe medium ac's too but it's not as broken]) (fix them) 2) Minny BS's and bigger. (fix them) 3) Gief AF's a 4th bonus. (is it that difficult...) ---------------- ASS movie for your viewing pleasure.
FT Diomedes Gallente Titan Industries Technology Team Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.05.16 23:27:00 - [877] Edited by: FT Diomedes on 16/05/2009 23:28:47 1. The Muninn - it needs to have the two utility highs moved to the mids. Also slightly adjust it so that it is easier to fit. 2. Adjust the non-Sansha faction ships. Some of them are just downright terrible. This includes adding new pirate factions that are Amarr-Gallente and Caldari-Minmatar crosses. 3. Remove the cloaking ability from Titans in 0.0. ...this doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne
Bizheep	Posted - 2009.05.17 00:25:00 - [878] 1-projectiles weapons, large, medium, arty ,AC. 2-blaster Large and medium size 3-minmatar BS
Rin Yumiko	Posted - 2009.05.17 00:39:00 - [879] 1> black ops ships needs some love like the sin and the redeemer
WillageGirl Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2009.05.17 00:51:00 - [880] 1. Use of local chat WH space is a step into right direction. Now we just need a more refined directional scanning system or somekind of a proximity scanner. 2. Sov. system It's wa too easy to hold sov. on large area's by simpy gathering a blob around defended system. When onl way to take a system is to gather a bigger blob (or disbanding the holding alliance) theres something really wrong with the game. Blob against blob isnt everyone's idea of fun. 3. Large and medium artillery Large minmatar sniper ships in general have no role in game. Minmatar is supposed to be the race for sneak attacks and hit and run tactics. Right now however, Minmatar BS and BC sized ships are only able to tickle and try to run since theres no great alpha, DPS is low, range is inferior compared to other long range weapons, and speed difference to other races is meaningless on large ships. In short, What ever attribute you want to build your plan on, theres always some better option than artillery when it's time to choose your weapon. Time to bring Arties inline with other turrets. Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004

Akiba Penrose	Posted - 2009.05.17 12:18:00 - [881] 1. There is no way of making a living from pvp, eventually youll have to rat or mine to get isk to buy new ships. PvP should pay off. 2. More Area of effect weapons/EW. It is an almost unused tactic. 3. Change low sec missions so that it is player skills that decides if a pirate manage to catch a mission runner, and not if he forgot to push the scan button for a minute.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.05.17 12:58:00 - [882] Originally by: Tekki Sandan Edited by: Tekki Sandan on 12/05/2009 03:47:49 Originally by: McEivalley 1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well. I hate that crap. If you spend more money on a ship you SHOULD have an advantage!! its like low SP pilots "aww thats not fair we dont have a chance with the older guys" yes thats because they spent more time skill training for it to be so. Market prices are a function of supply and demand. However, everyone knows that the markup on rigs is quite stupid in its proportions. Part of that is mainly due to some rigs being more in demand than others (in some cases, due to other rigs being completely obsolete) and the demand is much higher than the supply. Throw in traders to the pot and you get some rigs crossing absurd prices, yet keep rising. Check the ACR for example. And tbh, what should cost more? a mod that can be ripped and re-fitted at will (modular) or something that cannot be altered once used (one use)... My common sense the former, much like the difference between BPOs and BPCs. Insert clever remark where??
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.18 04:14:00 - [883] I can't remember how many times I've mentioned this one: Hyperion - 8/4/8 - big powergrid/cpu boost (25k, 850tf after skills) - 10% blaster damage bonus - 7.5% repair bonus - 50mbit/100m3 drones - swap base speed and agility with Megathron (Hyperion is currently the nimble one, lolz) It should be able to fit an active tank with Neutron IIs in the same way a Megathron can with Ion II's. Because of the bonus it would be fairly useless with rails. The DPS difference between Mega and Hype wouldn't be huge as one has 5 heavy drones while the other has 5 medium. But the Hyperion would be superior against other BS because of its tank and damage, while the Megathron would be more suitable for smaller fights or roaming where tracking, mobility and damage versatility count.
Vibora BR	Posted - 2009.05.18 05:08:00 - [884] - Minmatar ships need a boost. - Projectile guns need a boost. - T2 Ammo needs a boost = less penalties.
Rip Striker	Posted - 2009.05.18 11:52:00 - [885] From CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes: 0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look. --- It is now late early 2009...
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.18 18:34:00 - [886] span style= font-size:7pt i Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/05/2009 18:34:24 /i /span br BLOCKQUOTE font class=quote size=9px face= Verdana img src= /images/icon_quote_message.gif border= 0 b Originally by: /b i Rip Striker /i hr height=1 noshade From [url=http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/CSM-CCP_Meeting_1-2]CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes: 0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look. --- It is now late early 2009... I would like to point out that many of the same things in this thread were also in that meeting, such as projectiles, Minnie capitals, POS/Sov issues, RSD performance, etc. On that note, we're still waiting for the threads to discuss what's going on with the most commonly mentioned items. It says that CCP Fendahl was looking into large projectiles and their performance related to other turret types and was investigating some fixes. Can we get an update on what he thought might be a reasonable fix? Or hell, maybe even just start a thread here in gamedev and watch as the players suggest some very reasonable (and some not so reasonable!) fixes. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Att Test	Posted - 2009.05.19 02:09:00 - [887] Edited by: Att Test on 19/05/2009 02:10:10 1. Assault Frigates need a fourth bonus. 2. Rockets need some love. 3. Nighthawk needs some grid. (Posted with alt, woops.)
AncientLord	Posted - 2009.05.19 07:21:00 - [888] Black ops: Re-design in ships and its skins. Faction ships: Like nightmare etc.... needs "flavor" speacly Baghalor or whats its name. Best woud be to-redisgn some rare faction ships.
Ulstan	Posted - 2009.05.19 15:53:00 - [889] Edited by: Ulstan on 19/05/2009 16:04:27 1)Rockets badly need addressing. With the fixes to citadel torpedos, I think rockets are the most broken weapon system in the game. They're only really used by a handful of caldari/amarr ships with bonuses to those systems, but the weapon system itself is so terrible that those ships do better damage with other, unbonused weapons systems. They completely fail in their role of a close range anti frigate weapon. Due to the way they launch, and acceleration issues, their range is miniscule, but most importantly, their velocity and explosion velocity are utterly inadequate to the task of hitting frigates. 2) T2 Ammo needs rework. There are some gems in there, but lots of garbage - very high penalties for a very modest boost. 3) Assault Frigates: while they've made some progress, they still need their other bonus. They could also stand to be a bit more nimble. And of course, the hawk is terrible, less powerful than its T1 version and, along with the vengeance, suffers from bad rocket system. And the retribution only has 1 med slot!! 4) Bizarrely low PG on some ships: this is a pet peeve of mine. Several ships were given more turret slots (that they needed) but not the PG to actually fit the new turrets. Moa and Omen come to mind. Trying to fit those guys with their new guns is ARRRRRGH. They could have 8 turret slots, they don't have the PG to fit them. One ship, the Raptor, gained a turret slot but then LOST PG. The raptor has got to be hands down the worst interceptor at this point :p Poor thing needs some help. The Nighthawk is another ship with bizarrely low powergrid. It's probably the only T2 ship in the game that loses powergrid compared to the T1 version (drake),and needs 2 to 3 fitting mods to fit even basic PvP fits that other CS can fit with 0 or 1 fitting mods.
Lecitus	Posted - 2009.05.19 22:45:00 - [890] -Fix Matar Battleships and Artillery.

SideControl The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.05.20 02:39:00 - [891] 1. Highsec has too many rewards and too little risk. 2. Faction war is basically a free war dec, which is great, but little reward from participating exists. Most experienced players have no interest in faction war, as their is little (isk) benefit from it, leading to newer players often not being able to recieve the guidance of older established pvp'ers. Fac War has recieved little attention afaik since its realease, a response to the issues posed in many threads on the greater forums would better it imo. 3. Seriously, why, unless I pirate would I wish to LIVE in low sec? It is very possible, evading pirates is a hell of a lot easier than some would have you believe. But running a lvl 4 in highsec makes more money than ratting/anomalies in low sec, despite both 0 risk and better markets in highsec. Boost lowsec or nerf highsec, but make lowsec a worthwhile place to live!
Kronsur Boon	Posted - 2009.05.20 17:08:00 - [892] Edited by: Kronsur Boon on 20/05/2009 17:14:22 Hi-sec mission running. There seems to be a imbalance with the risk and reward. The missions are effectively farmed. The vast amounts of loot dropped (when measured as a whole) make production of T1 ship equipment pointless. The reprocessed loot also has a negative effect on mining. I'm surprised those level 4 hi-sec mission agents are bankrupt yet Cloaking and going AFK, there should be some sort of penalty Blaster tracking speed seems to be too slow. Considering the close ranges for the weapon to be effective, the Gallente engineers should have realized that good tracking was vital.
Fille Balle Dissolution Of Eternity Ethikos Trade Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.20 22:28:00 - [893] 1. Shield tanks in pvp - a lot of people argue that the slots are meant to be that way, and that you have to choose one or the other. Let's examine them for a sec: Shield: -Shield tanks have 6 "tank slots" (bs) -3/8 ships in the game are "effectively" shield tanks -Other modules that go in mids: Cap booster, MWD, AB, point, WEB total: 5 -Shields have less base resistance than armor Armor: -Armor tanks have 7 "tank slots" (bs) -5/8 ships in the game are "effectively" armor tanks -Other modules that go in lows: damage mods total: 1 -Armor has more base resistance than shields I think some leveling is needed. 2. Blasters - give us a boost please With the extremely short range of blasters, they where less useful after the speed nerf, which some agrue was acceptable. After the WEB nerf, well... I think a bit more range would solve the problem better than more tracking, but something needs doing 3. Can we make wardec's more than a way to discourage noobs to start corps? Since there are so many ways to avoid wardec's, and they are so cheap, wardec's have become a low cost hit and miss try to get the noobies mechanic. If this is working as intended, then I think the intention is wrong. Give wars a purpose!
Connor Banks Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.05.21 08:38:00 - [894] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Rip Striker Edited by: Rip Striker on 21/05/2009 07:48:21 Haven't you guys noticed that according to CCP (most) Caldari ship hulls were never ment to use a MWD and buffer tank. This is where CCP made a HUGE mistake. Many Caldari ships suffer from having a way too low PG output. Read the bold part below. Quote: From CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes: 0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look. And yes, I agree, more PG to the Eagle. Or you can simply fit sensor boosters and tracking comps as "is intended" instead of tank and mwd. And still ccp designed the game in a way, that mwd is mandatory most of the time. If they say caldari is not meant to be use mwd then the didnt designed caldari for pvp at all. They should eighter reconcider caldari design or warn ppl that caldari is solely for pve only race, and give back sp to those who want to pvp in this game. 1. When you create your eve character there really should be information (preferably flashy red) saying that many or most Caldari ships are designed for static and long range engagements. 2. More PG to Caldari ships in general. 3. It would be nice to lower the CPU need for shield remote reps so that we, caldari ship pilots, do not need to mount 2! fittings modules, one for pg and one for cpu.
Tuncan Minmatar Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.05.21 09:40:00 - [895] 1-) Large projectiles - Boost 2-) Cap Boosters- nerf 3-) Damage control unit- nerf ( too overpowered module imho )
JinChilla Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.21 13:54:00 - [896] 1.give some love to large projectile turrets 2.increase rewards for going into low + zero security space 3.increase risk for piracy in empire space ==Sig== [2009.01.26 13:26:00]Kashimir: Very rational way to deal with this... [2009.01.26 13:48:00]CCP Claw: Don't say that out loud, people might think that we know what we're doing!
alpha11 Dynaverse Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.21 16:44:00 - [897] Is nozh still alive? Is this thread dead? no word from him for a month....... -artillery/large projectiles -rockets -t2 ammo Thanks for fixing the Nag, but the above are equally if not more broken
Shai Haluu'd	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:55:00 - [898] Edited by: Shai Haluu''d on 22/05/2009 09:07:06 1. Gallente ships /TIPS:/ a. give the Megathron +10 base CPU (at least), it would make a big difference, after all Hybrids need A LOT of it b1. give the Brutix some PG (no point in having armor repair bonus if you cannot actually fit an armor repair) -OR b2. replace the armor repair bonus with tracking c1. give the Ishtar +1 turret slot and some PG/CPU to actually fit one (4x Dual 150mm Railguns/Electron Blasters FTW) -OR c2. give the Ishtar some PG/CPU so you can fit 3 proper guns -OR c3. remove the hybrid damage bonus and replace it with agility/cap/resists/repair amount etc. -OR c4. -1Mid +1Low + some PG, though you can forget about the uber_shield_tank_Ishtar_setup d1. use all Hyperions for scrap and burn ALL Hyperion BPOs -OR d2. replace the armor repair bonus with optimal/falloff and change it to -1Mid +1Low slot 2. Blasters /TIPS:/ a. increase blaster falloff a bit b. change Null ammo modifiers to 1.3x optimal and 1.3x falloff, otherwise it's not even close to the competition 3. EW /TIPS:/ a. change Stasis Webifier speed penalty from b/n 55-60% to b/n 55-65% b. give dampeners and Gallente recons some lovin' Edit: I sympathize with all Minmatar brethren and I support the Artillery range boost (within reason). Or just increase the optimal modifier of Tremor ammo (or add some falloff modifier) 'cause seeing a 'fleet' Tempest or a long range Muninn makes me so sad...
ArcticPrism	Posted - 2009.05.22 10:53:00 - [899] 1. Assault Ships need a 4th bonus. Only t2 ship without a 4th bonus. If you can't think of anything, at least give them what their t1 hulls give like every other t2 ship. Stabber has 5% velocity per cruiser level, so does a Vagabond. Rifter has 7.5% with its 5% damage bonus. Jaguar and Wolf only have the 5% damage, why? 2. Assault ships have a 20-30% mass increase from their t1 hulls? Even with higher base speeds they are still slower. 50% longer align time than t1 hull, and with the recent changes, 4-5 second align time on a frigate? More if you use plates. 3. Rockets have marginally higher dps than light missiles. Their explosion velocity is half of a light missile. They can barely hit their targets. They have a clip size of 30 ish, yet their rate of fire is quite high and low volley damage. They are suppose to be a close range-anti frigate weapon, but do a poor job due to afterburners significantly reducing the damage. You can get more dps with non-bonuses weapons. Boost rocket dps/explosion velocity so rockets don't suck so bad.
Istvaan Shogaatsu Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2009.05.22 18:10:00 - [900] The Legion is garbage compared to the other t3 ships. Undergunned and devoid of interesting bonuses. Barely capable of exceeding 800 dps with overheating, where Proteus can attain 1000+ cold.

Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.05.22 21:31:00 - [901] Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 22/05/2009 21:31:36 1. Carriers. The Thanatos and Nidhoggur need their racial bonuses boosted. On non-capital ships, resist bonuses are treated as being 'of higher quality' than other bonuses (i.e. tier 3 battleships get either a +5% resist bonus or level but a +7.5% repper/booster amount per level). Every ship except the Thanatos that gets a drone damage bonus gets +10% (or more) to drone damage and hitpoints. The Nidhoggur needs at least a +7.5% per level bonus to remote capital repper/booster amount. At the very least, the Thanatos needs +10% damage per level to fighters. +10% to fighter HP and/or applying the bonuses to all drones wouldn't be unreasonable. 2. HACs pt.1 Every HAC except the Zealot has at least one 'utility high slot'. While these slots provide some degree of flexibility, the Zealot has a huge advantage in terms of fitting tank and/or gank because of its slot layout. This applies to AFs to a lesser extent but they are still lacking their 4th bonus are are already due for balancing so I'm leaving them off of my list. Either the Zealot needs to have a low slot moved up to a high slot, or every other HAC needs to be evaluated for having a 'utility high slot' moved down to either a low or a mid. 2. HACs pt.2 The Eagle lacks sufficient powergrid to mount a basic sniper fit without a fitting mod. There are only two HACs that cannot fit a full rack of largest-caliber guns, a MWD, and basic sniper kit (damage mods, sensor boosters, etc.) without a using a fitting module: the Eagle and the Vagabond. The Vagabond is pretty much designed to be a fast, short-range ship that uses autocannons so this is not a terrible shortcoming, but the Eagle is designed specifically as a fleet sniper so this is a serious limitation. The Eagle needs to have about as much powergrid as the Deimos (i.e. 100-125 more base powergrid) in order to effectively compete with other sniper HACs. -------------------- "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
Vyllana	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:22:00 - [902] Rockets are severely broken. They need a boost to explosion velocity and base damage.
Vyllana	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:42:00 - [903] Active tanking needs to be made more appealing in more situations, compared to buffer tanking, which is currently dominant in most types of PvP. Maybe increase the fitting reqs on oversized armor plates / shield extenders? Currently many cruisers/BCs can fit (sometimes several) 1600mm plates / large shield extenders without sacrificing much, achieving huge amounts of HP for their ship type. These are the largest size modules and thus should only really be fitting on battleships, and even then, just 1 or at most 2, not 3 or 4 like we currently see with triple 1600mm plated battleship setups. At the same time, look into the cap use of active tanking modules. Most ships have trouble running appropriate sized armor reps / shield boosters for decent lengths of time unless using multiple cap mods or cap boosters. As a standard, I think a battleship should, in general, have enough cap to permarun 1 large armor rep / large shield booster + weapons without running out of cap. Of course, extra cap would still be needed for the dual repper / XL booster setups, or for running a propulsion mod or other cap-using modules. Similarly, cruiser/BC sized ships should have the cap to run a medium armor rep or medium shield booster + weapons, and frigates should have the cap to run a small armor rep or small shield booster. This would also make these setups slightly less vulnerable to cap warfare, which is one of their big downfalls compared to buffer tanks.
Nessaji Caldari Rosa Alba Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.23 13:03:00 - [904] 1. Nighthawk needs more powergrid. Try fitting it with similar setup as other commandships, mwd, shortrange guns/missiles and you see the problem. 2. Eagle got the 5th turret to bring it inline with other hacs, however it didnt get the powergrid to fit the turret+mwd, and thus you need to downgrade the turrets or use fitting mods instead of magstabs which means the extra turret is useless. 3. Raptor needs more powergrid. It can barely fit 75mm rails and mwd. Up the grid so that raptor can fit 125mm turrets, mwd, and standard missile launcher+tackle and speedmods without fitting mods. Somehow when raptor got the 3rd turret, you developers reduced the pg instead of raising it, which it would have needed to use the 3rd turret. ______________________________________ "Originally by: Tuxford It was a dirty hack to be honest but we couldn't find anyway around it. I hope we never have to do it again."
AnzacPaul	Posted - 2009.05.24 07:47:00 - [905] seems to be the same 3 or 4 issues over and over in this thread that are getting ignored 1)Rockets, does it need to be said again that they do no dps, have crap explosion velocity and a very small clip size for a quick fire weapon? 2) T2 Ammo Faction ammo is better in 95% of cases, t2 ammo has far too many drawbacks to be useful. 3) Assault Frigs, particularly hawk and retribution, absoloute fail ships. Need a 4th bonus all round. 4)Powergrid on a number of ships ie Nighthawk and Eagle.
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.05.24 10:26:00 - [906] Edited by: Thenoran on 24/05/2009 10:30:37 Rockets Seriously, Light Missiles are better in every way. Terrible explosion velocity for something so small (it should do full damage to frigates), terrible damage and even crappier ammo capacity. Hawk Kestrel does more damage and is far cheaper. The shield boosting bonus is a waste because no frigate has any realistic cap for it. Also, shield resist bonus will always be much much better, as they benefit both active and buffer tanks. 1 mid-slot ships Seriously, what is the point of these ships? Giving them only one mid-slot leaves them purely as gang DPS or a salvager. Retribution and Coercer (and any other 1 mid-slot) ship should have a low-slot or high-slot traded for a mid-slot. The Retri has a fifth high-slot but only four turret hardpoints, so use that fifth high-slot for a second mid-slot. Assault Frigate 4th Bonus The Assault Frigates, completely breaking T2 Ship Standards, lack a fourth ship bonus (the second bonus from its T1 base hull). They should be given a new bonus so they are in line with other T2 ships. Also note this is one of the reasons why the Hawk is so crappy. T2 Ammunition Only the long-range ammo has any useful purpose, whereas the high-damage ammunition is complete crap when faced with Faction ammo which you can get easily from LP stores or the market. In addition, they add nothing useful, all they do is a tiny sliver of additional damage than the faction variant, but have terrible terrible penalties. Take a look at Quake L ammo penalties: 12% worse capacitor recharge time per turret using the ammo (worst.penalty.ever) -75% range, 25% worse than the highest damage ammo -10% velocity per turret using the ammo -25% tracking for something that is supposed to be up close Put that together and you get Fail L ammunition. Tracking should be given a bonus, not a penalty as it's purely close range ammo. Capacitor should never be affected by ammo other than how much cap they consume per shot, if any. For projectile turrets I'm sure you can think of something to function similar to increased cap usage for a shot by hybrids or lasers. Range should be the same as the highest damage, it can only be less if the damage is really THAT high. Killing your velocity means you can't stay with your target to use that fancy ammo. On top of all this, the faction variant of EMP L does essentialy the same amount of damage with no penalties at all. The only practical penalties are: Range & Falloff (to a degree, no point using higher damage ammo if you lose too much damage due to range) Increased energy consumption for the shot itself (no cap recharge penalties!) Ammo being large itself (ammo capacity) Potentially (for Projectiles), instead of having increase cap consumption (as they use no cap) you could spread out the damage equally over their used damage types. This removes any specific strong point against a certain damage type while still doing high damage. Potential bonuses besides damage: Significantly reduced cap consumption Greatly improved tracking Ammo itself being smaller, allowing for maybe 100+ shots to be stored Hitting one damage type more than others (could be a penalty though) Not having penalties like -50% range while keeping high damage In addition, it might be very helpful if new T2 ammunition variants were created. Their purpose would be to hit other damage types than they normally would. You already got an example of this in the EVE Database, namely Desolation L, T2 version of Blaster ammo hitting EM rather than Kinetic. For those you could institute different penalties (maybe damage or something). ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Morikai Acler Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.25 05:44:00 - [907] 1.) Sovereignty and it's effects on systems in 0.0 regions. I've been playing since early 04 on this character. I've been in 0.0 space 80% of that time. Before the current sov system came into the game, the only effect True Sec rating had on a system was contents of the asteroid belts in the system. Since the current Sov System has come into play, now the only places you can find decent ratting in 0.0 is true sec -0.75 or lower, thus causing much over crowding in said system. Making 0.0 less enticing. cosmic sigs and anomalies have alleviated this some. But as it is now, it's almost impossible to get an officer spawn outside of npc 0.0. 2.) Missiles, the last few nerfs have takin things just a bit too far on them. The explosion velocity mechanic has seriously hurt them, at least at their current states. In pve I can use a gun boat, and instant pop frigates without much hassle. Now if I'm flying a missile boat, I have to either use drones or take more ammo than should be reasonable to kill them. In PVP they're near useless due to speed tanking, as well as the long range variants taking far too long to reach targets. So velocity/flight time on the long range variants needs to be looked at. 3.) Command ships, certain ones need to be looked at, such as the nighthawk for their usefulness.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Star's Dust Industrie	Posted - 2009.05.25 08:44:00 - [908] 1/ 0.0 access for carebears/small alliances 2/ artillery 3/ after 4 or 5 speed nerf, matar's speed isn't an asset anymore Fetchez la vache ! moar(tm) < soon(tm) :(
Mafaka Amarr The 5th Freedom Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.26 07:31:00 - [909] Edited by: Mafaka on 26/05/2009 07:35:23 Edited by: Mafaka on 26/05/2009 07:32:24 1) drone recall button for lost drones if u get disconnected , very needed for carrier pilot and other drone boats. 2) sov system need to change for good , pos spam and rewards for individuals in 00 are must be changed. Ratting is boring all the time , Complexes are not everywhere , wormholes are too unstable and risk does not justifyes the reward in most of the cases from the point of view of occasional player. ( least u ccp can do is to put lvl 5 agent in every outpost super hard quality so we can use caps time to time without going to low sec - we already in 00 - it sounds like care bear talk - but boy sometimes there is just nothing else to do in 00 when everything cleared and killed ) 3)Space is empty - there are only few objects of interest - gates, stations, POSs, belts , exploration sites. - nothing else ! why not add a new player own structure that can blown up and built and be useful somehow? whats up with pvp being only at POS ? or better at the gates? ( gate camps really outdated way of getting people into combat - seriously, why not add some different objective or give this some feeling of strategy. cloaking + local + black ops that cant warp but can jump to cyno jammed systems but cant do ** there anyway without huge support - is a perfect example of Fail**. ( p.s. - everyone can see u in local anyway - what the point in covert ops cyno generator? seriosly - as long as 1 red in a system - everyone already docked up and warped away, what would u do? )
BhallSpawn	Posted - 2009.05.26 10:20:00 - [910] make missiles viable for pvp that is all

Rye Contini Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.26 12:43:00 - [911] 1) T2 ammo (hail,quake,gleem,conflag,void etc) hard to think of a time you would ever use it over faction. replace with short range, high tracking, low damage alternative? 2) Split weapon systems ships, not actually "versatile" just harder to train for :) perhaps make a 4/4 ships 5/5 (or even 4/5 if hardpoints are an issue) 3) matari recons, web nerf now means that 2x webs are mandatory for holding targets, perhaps drop TP bonus on rapier and give web strength bonus (nothing too major).
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.27 09:34:00 - [912] did this die? 60D GTC - shattared link
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.27 18:12:00 - [913] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl did this die? NEVER SURRENDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
ArchBishop Stealth	Posted - 2009.05.27 22:11:00 - [914] I agree with many of the previous posts, particularly the following: 1. 0.0 rewards vs lvl 4 mission running. More importantly belt NPCs and Complexes. Belt NPCs need to have their bounties increased so they are not marginally higher then Lvl 4 mission NPCs. As for complexes, the spawn frequency and total number needs to be increased overall. 2. Small Alliances in 0.0. Agreed that SOV needs to be looked at. Currently small alliances/ corps really have no footholds into 0.0 space unless they become a larger alliance's lackey (which from experience doesn't truly benefit the smaller corp) 3. T2 ammo. Pretty much useless IMO compared to Faction ammo. T2 ammo needs to have a benefit that Faction does not. Either decrease the penalties on T2 to make it more acceptable, or create a different penatly on Faction so that using faction ammo presents a different situation.
Veebora Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.28 00:24:00 - [915] Originally by: ArchBishop Stealth ... 3. ... penatly on Faction so that using faction ammo presents a different situation. In this case we'll also stop using Faction ammo and start using just T1 ammo. What does it help?
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.28 21:11:00 - [916] Heelllloooooooooooooo... /echo /echo /echo :( -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.28 21:42:00 - [917] Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 21:44:50 Originally by: Merroki Originally by: Originally by: Alxea I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed. If you mean 800 DPS passive tanked, don't forget to take into account that 800 DPS only happens at roughly 1/3 shield, Originally by: This is not correct. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3936315&page=1&filter=losses#mail 2008.09.29 10:50:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: U-208 Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 168924 Involved parties: Name: switchkiller Security: 2.9 Corp: Virtual Warriors Alliance: Solidus Alliance Faction: NONE Ship: Paladin Weapon: Mega Pulse Laser II Damage Done: 107888 Name: BAINY (laid the final blow) Security: 5.0 Corp: Wired Noodle Enterprises Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Chimera Weapon: Templar Damage Done: 61036 Destroyed items: Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 65 Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 2 Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 3 220mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I 425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I 'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement Core Defence Field Purger I, Qty: 2 Nanite Repair Paste, Qty: 1200 (Cargo) Dropped items: Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 132 Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 3 Large Shield Extender II 425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 2600 (Cargo) Hammerhead II, Qty: 5 (Drone Bay) Ogre I, Qty: 6 (Drone Bay) http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3774931&page=1&filter=losses#mail 2008.08.23 13:55:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: Placidity Inc. Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 75402 Involved parties: Name: Wild Rho Security: 2.4 Corp: Silent Core Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Purifier Weapon: Electron Bomb Damage Done: 5330 Name: GRUNT 1 Security: 5.0 Corp: Freelancer Union Alliance: Unaffiliated Faction: NONE Ship: Abaddon Weapon: Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I Damage Done: 557 Name: Azazul Security: 2.7 Corp: Onorata Societa Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Vagabond Weapon: 425mm AutoCannon II Damage Done: 22842 Name: Surround Security: 5.0 Corp: Deutsche Minen und Werke Alliance: Guardian Federation Faction: NONE Ship: Onyx Weapon: Heavy Missile Launcher II Damage Done: 12403 Name: morthala (laid the final blow) Security: 1.6 Corp: Hive Bound Technologies Alliance: NONE Faction: Minmatar Republic Ship: Raven Weapon: Inferno Torpedo Damage Done: 5537 Name: Aeyar Security: 4.7 Corp: Deep Core Mining Inc. Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Absolution Weapon: Absolution Damage Done: 10972 Name: Lord MariuzZ Security: -2.9 Corp: Jagdkommando Alliance: RAZOR Alliance Faction: NONE Ship: Deimos Weapon: Deimos Damage Done: 2289 Name: Skull Spain Security: 2.4 Corp: Dilmun GmbH Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Hyperion Weapon: Hyperion Damage Done: 11095 Name: Nagel far Security: 2.4 Corp: Space Cavalry 7th Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Typhoon Weapon: 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher Damage Done: 4377 Name: BH Carteman Security: 10.0 Corp: All your base ar3 belong to us Alliance: NONE Faction: Amarr Empire Ship: Kronos Weapon: Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Damage Done: 0 Destroyed items: Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 2 Co-Processor II Modal Electron Particle Accelerator I, Qty: 2 Small Nosferatu II Core Defence Field Extender I, Qty: 2 Antimatter Charge M, Qty: 344 (Cargo) Dropped items: Antimatter Charge M, Qty: 354 Power Diagnostic System II, Qty: 2 Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 3 Modal Electron Particle Accelerator I Small Energy Neutralizer II Ogre I, Qty: 3 (Drone Bay) Somebody put these lovely's on my kill board out of humor. You know how overpowered a shield tank is? I can't tank 1/10th of what I did with armor and that was ages ago. Your wrong...
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.28 22:10:00 - [918] Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 22:14:18 Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 22:11:59 Continued... PS: Those fights lasted a long time. And at that time I was a noob at it almost a year ago. I just found a really crazy setup that works well at tanking damage. Its nice to have a mission boat that can tank every level 4 mission I came accross so far. Hmm 10.0 standing with a NPC corp, looks like my ishtar has done some good work. 8 faction standing... and it would be one hell of a fleet boat for extra firepower at those gate camps. Since I can take directed fire for some time. You know how slow drakes go down... its like that. Only smaller sig radius = less damage. And if I orbit a can thats like 300+ DPS tank. It litterally took minates to kill the ishtar. And in my older deaths it takes 10 or 20 secs for the armor to fail. Look at my other ishtar deaths. See how I only tank 10,000hp and 15,000hp with armor vs 100,000hp damage done agenst a deimos that was doing about 800 DPS to me and I had shields. Its really funny how I almost beat a 800 DPS deimos if he didn't take out all my drones he would have been dead. Back then that was about a year ago so just think about that. What I can do now with nearly maxed skills. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3569503&page=3&filter=losses#mail 2008.06.28 04:28:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: Serenity Inc Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 106305 Involved parties: Name: Delanhunt (laid the final blow) Security: 3.3 Corp: Vanguard Frontiers Alliance: Imperial Republic Of the North Faction: NONE Ship: Deimos Weapon: Heavy Electron Blaster II Damage Done: 106305 Destroyed items: Shield Power Relay II Light Neutron Blaster II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, Qty: 2 Void S, Qty: 56 Small Energy Neutralizer II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I Core Defence Field Purger I, Qty: 2 Dropped items: Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 4 Magnetic Scattering Amplifier I Light Neutron Blaster II, Qty: 2 Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, Qty: 2 Void S, Qty: 5 Void S, Qty: 1751 (Cargo) Null S, Qty: 2976 (Cargo)
Cameron Freerunner	Posted - 2009.05.29 19:09:00 - [919] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. I'm still pretty new to eveything. Forgive my simplistic approach. 1. Minmatar ships need some love. We have to train twice as hard for second best. 2. Minmatar ships need some love. 3. Minmatar ships need some love.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.05.30 11:26:00 - [920] So are we still doing this? Is there some kind of lunch or something i missed? Nozh on vacation in the Bahamas for a couple months? ---------- Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother*****r

To mare	Posted - 2009.05.31 14:22:00 - [921] Originally by: Cameron Freerunner Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. I'm still pretty new to eveything. Forgive my simplistic approach. 1. Minmatar ships need some love. We have to train twice as hard for second best. 2. Minmatar ships need some love. 3. Minmatar ships need some love. you forgot that minmatar weapons need more love than minmatar ships.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.06.01 12:30:00 - [922] So, whats the next issue to be cherry picked as a key issue of balance by the Devs? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.06.01 15:27:00 - [923] If this gets unstickied without even a cursory look at Minmatar weapons/ships and blasters, I'm going to be very upset. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.06.02 00:39:00 - [924] a dev reply stating what the 31 pages of player feedback compiled will result in would be nice.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:02:00 - [925] whats going on :/ I would love to knoww hat ccps 350 plus staff is working on :/ Not to say your not working, just more of, I want to know whats going on, and Whatn we should expect. A nice "YOu should expect 3 months of less news while we work like crazy" would be nice. The fact that this thread hasn't been updated and now moved worries me :/ but more so it makes me wonder what nozh has been up to. I feel like everyday that poasses the devs get things done. I just wish we could know what that stuff is.
Cutty Carebear	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:29:00 - [926] 1/ Fix supercaps size 2/ Fix supercaps survivability 3/ Fix supercaps roles.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:42:00 - [927] Um, moving this to features/ideas is not going to make it go away. You promised us a thread with results based on what the player base wanted fixed... these threads have not materialized. In fact, you seemed to start your way at the bottom and work your way up cherry picking random ideas. This is very disappointing. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.06.02 04:23:00 - [928] Originally by: Liang Nuren Um, moving this to features/ideas is not going to make it go away. You promised us a thread with results based on what the player base wanted fixed... these threads have not materialized. In fact, you seemed to start your way at the bottom and work your way up cherry picking random ideas. This is very disappointing. -Liang Maybe they moved it to the appropriate place in their minds. If they wanted it to "go-away", they would have deleted it. Quit this BS of yours Liang or quit Eve in protest. Simple as that. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Trellish The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.06.02 06:01:00 - [929] Edited by: Trellish on 02/06/2009 06:01:57 I can sign on to some of the comments in this forum. Really CCP, there should never be less than 2 slots at any level... low, mid, high. Feel free to play with what can go there by means of turrents, but the base criteria for ALL ships should be at least 2 of each slot. edit... also signing onto the boost rockets comments. ><
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.02 07:21:00 - [930] so "lets make topic for balancing, take 2 easy to fix ones and forget about it, they will be happy" 60D GTC - shattared link


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.06.02 07:24:00 - [931] Originally by: MotherMoon The fact that this thread hasn't been updated and now moved worries me :/ but more so it makes me wonder what nozh has been up to. I feel like everyday that poasses the devs get things done. I just wish we could know what that stuff is. /me ruffles Mothermoons hair. Do not fear, we are trying to make the distinction between changes on or soon to come to our test servers and threads for discussion of ideas for possible future changes or improvements so the game development forum is for singularity test server discussion only and reduce the new thread churn there which can dilute the real test server issue threads. Right now, we have the top issues list from this thread and are looking at them internally and monitoring the thread. It would be premature for us to say much more than that for now. Typically sets of changes will come in waves as we move between sprints so you could expect weeks of silence then an explosion of sticky threads again :)

MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.06.02 09:21:00 - [932] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: MotherMoon The fact that this thread hasn't been updated and now moved worries me :/ but more so it makes me wonder what nozh has been up to. I feel like everyday that poasses the devs get things done. I just wish we could know what that stuff is. /me ruffles Mothermoons hair. Do not fear, we are trying to make the distinction between changes on or soon to come to our test servers and threads for discussion of ideas for possible future changes or improvements so the game development forum is for singularity test server discussion only and reduce the new thread churn there which can dilute the real test server issue threads. Right now, we have the top issues list from this thread and are looking at them internally and monitoring the thread. It would be premature for us to say much more than that for now. Typically sets of changes will come in waves as we move between sprints so you could expect weeks of silence then an explosion of sticky threads again :) Sooo.. it was more of... man if only we had a separate forum where ideas could be disscuss while keeping the game devopment forum for just the test server... hmmm.... :P Please, This time don't forgot about this forum, it's become a sort of... how to put it... dev-less wasteland. Posting in this forum had gotten the feeling of, post here if you don't want the devs to read :P Maybe that's not true, but trust me when i say, that is why duplicate threads pop up in both forums. Because the threads in game development get dev replys much more often than here. rant done, thanks for easing, what I am sure is many players fear that you were going to forget about this thread :)
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.06.02 12:41:00 - [933] Originally by: MotherMoon Please, This time don't forgot about this forum, it's become a sort of... how to put it... dev-less wasteland. Posting in this forum had gotten the feeling of, post here if you don't want the devs to read :P More like brain-less wasteland. Most regular posters have entirely stopped posting there, since it has degraded into a two-liner spam and daily reposts of the same ideas that have been discussed ages ago. It might be beneficial to scrap F&I in its current form entirely. I doubt any dev wants to go back multiple pages of waste to find one of the few gems hidden in that forum. Rather than that, open a thread for an area that you want to look at, like Nozh already did. Keep those strictly moderated, and there will be some good feedback and ideas coming, and no dev brains will be hurt by reading the crap on F&I. ;) ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
To mare	Posted - 2009.06.02 13:01:00 - [934] most regular poster stopped posting because there wasnt any dev reply. and after all those pages the situation should be clear enough as i think most of forum readers and relative alts have already posted .
Mica Swanhaven	Posted - 2009.06.02 16:39:00 - [935] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: MotherMoon Please, This time don't forgot about this forum, it's become a sort of... how to put it... dev-less wasteland. Posting in this forum had gotten the feeling of, post here if you don't want the devs to read :P More like brain-less wasteland. Most regular posters have entirely stopped posting there, since it has degraded into a two-liner spam and daily reposts of the same ideas that have been discussed ages ago. It might be beneficial to scrap F&I in its current form entirely. I doubt any dev wants to go back multiple pages of waste to find one of the few gems hidden in that forum. Rather than that, open a thread for an area that you want to look at, like Nozh already did. Keep those strictly moderated, and there will be some good feedback and ideas coming, and no dev brains will be hurt by reading the crap on F&I. ;)
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.06.02 20:41:00 - [936] Totally overlooked this thread Ok, it probably won't make any difference anymore , but anyways: 1. Active <-> passive tanks in PvP Almost no drawback for passive, major drawbacks (fitting, energy dependent, time dependent, not scaling with numbers) for active tanks. This also affects volley damage (artillery) and close range high damage fittings (AC, blasters), so if balanced right could kill several birds with one stone. 2. Projectile weapons Projectile ammo anomaly was a nice idea, but kinda hurts Matar ships nowadays. It boosts long range T1 ammo which almost noone uses, due to T2 range ammo and crazy range requirements in todays sniper fleets. 3. T2 short-range ammo Faction ammo is just too superior in comparison. Either decrease faction damage bonus or give T2 ammo some really useful and special bonus. Quite a lot of the mentioned issues seem rather unsubstantiated or based on bias to me. I hope you dev guys pick the right ones, because imho some issues are just symptoms of the real problems. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Morikai Acler Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.06.03 17:21:00 - [937] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Totally overlooked this thread Ok, it probably won't make any difference anymore , but anyways: 1. Active <-> passive tanks in PvP Almost no drawback for passive, major drawbacks (fitting, energy dependent, time dependent, not scaling with numbers) for active tanks. This also affects volley damage (artillery) and close range high damage fittings (AC, blasters), so if balanced right could kill several birds with one stone. 2. Projectile weapons Projectile ammo anomaly was a nice idea, but kinda hurts Matar ships nowadays. It boosts long range T1 ammo which almost noone uses, due to T2 range ammo and crazy range requirements in todays sniper fleets. 3. T2 short-range ammo Faction ammo is just too superior in comparison. Either decrease faction damage bonus or give T2 ammo some really useful and special bonus. Quite a lot of the mentioned issues seem rather unsubstantiated or based on bias to me. I hope you dev guys pick the right ones, because imho some issues are just symptoms of the real problems. 1. Actually passive tanks do have their drawbacks. With shields you're traiding sig radius for passive shield recharge rate. You may not think that's much, until you get hit for full damage by a citadel torp in a BC, and watch your passive tank and ship disappear, in a matter of 2-3 hits. Also due to having large sig you're taking full damage for all missiles and weapons hitting you. If you're passive tanking a shield ship, you can't speed tank at the same time, as you'll lose a great deal of passive recharge. Active tanks generally can counter more dps, but at the weakness of being cap bound, meaning they're weak against Neutralizer ships. As far as buffer armor tanking goes, you're sacrificing a lot of speed and acceleration for hp's. Which is why buffer tanking is most common in pvp fleet pvp. 3. This is very true, t2 blaster ammo is almost pointless, t2 torps are kinda meh though not as bad as they use to be, t2 AC ammo is ok, needs a bit more dmg though, haven't been able to play around with t2 pulse ammo yet.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:37:00 - [938] 1. Faction ships, particularly Guristas ships. Useless bonuses, impossible to fit. 2. lolRockets. 3. Fitting requirements of Shield Transporters. Look at CPU requirements. Compare them to remote armour reps. Cry.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:52:00 - [939] Originally by: Morikai Acler Originally by: Tarron Sarek stuff 1. discussion stuff 3. more discussion stuff Do you people care to read the OP, at all? Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. I mean, no offense, I would've liked to discuss, too. But don't you think this would go too far if everyone would start arguing? ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Aston Vette	Posted - 2009.06.04 03:53:00 - [940] 1) Potential risk/reward ratios in High sec, low sec and 0.0 2) Sovereignty mechanics 3) 0.0 combat mechanics (Titans, POS grinding, blobs & farmers) I think these are the three biggest issues with Eve. I think they are interconnected somewhat.

ARALIEUS Amarr Traumark Logistics	Posted - 2009.06.04 04:50:00 - [941] 1. shield tanking>armor tanking 2. carriers should be allowed in 0.5 and lower systems 3. boost lvl 5's and add lvl 6's to 0.0 Explanations: 1. From my experiance and others info on a consistent basis it is far more harder to break a shield tank than armor tank. Reason bieng imo opinion is that armor tankers have more penalty's involved when fitting 2. Why not but in all seriousness this should be allowed for for the buff lvl 4's could possibly get (if there made harder) and it would be a usefull tool in high sec wardecks. Granted some restrictions should apply ie; corp should have a certain standing with that faction of space (like a high-sec POS but higer) 8.0+, a special "Capitol Ship High-Sec Entry" lisence should be enforced thru CONCORD, only allowed in as high as .5 space, 1 carrier per corp allowed in system etc etc... 3. Even if lvl 4's do get nerfed, lvl 5's still need some love and affection also lvl 6's would add more to the game in general. Ara
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.06.04 07:21:00 - [942] 1)artillery of all size double damage mod adjust rof to keep the same dps. 2)autocannon of all size increase falloff with the size of the gun, bring dps in line with other weapon systems (less than blaster, more than laser). 3)minmatar ships are too heavy, minmatar are the speedy race and theyr ships are some of the most heavy in space
Alekso1980	Posted - 2009.06.04 14:44:00 - [943] я по поводу вот этой вещи - "Мобильный ангар и сборочное строение. Используется для хранения кораблей и установки модулей в космосе, находящихся в грузовом отсеке корабля." - как может ангар быть меньше корабля который туда помещается? исправьте а то это портит ощущение от игры, пропадает реалестичность.
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.06.04 17:11:00 - [944] Originally by: Alekso1980 я по поводу вот этой вещи - "Мобильный ангар и сборочное строение. Используется для хранения кораблей и установки модулей в космосе, находящихся в грузовом отсеке корабля." - как может ангар быть меньше корабля который туда помещается? исправьте а то это портит ощущение от игры, пропадает реалестичность. ^ this really
Alekso1980	Posted - 2009.06.05 11:07:00 - [945] да, это действительно.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.06.05 20:07:00 - [946] Originally by: 1600 RT 1)artillery of all size double damage mod adjust rof to keep the same dps. 2)autocannon of all size increase falloff with the size of the gun, bring dps in line with other weapon systems (less than blaster, more than laser). 3)minmatar ships are too heavy, minmatar are the speedy race and theyr ships are some of the most heavy in space seriously, on my typhoon we even threw out the mattresses in the crew quarters to save on weight!
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.06.07 11:53:00 - [947] This is taking the **. Thread moved again, no dev replies relevant to thread content in an age. Originally by:** CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Letifer Deus Balls Deep Inc.	Posted - 2009.06.07 18:30:00 - [948] 1)T2 ammo. This is a two parter. T2 high-damage hyb/proj/energy ammo is worthless. Cap usage is terrible (esp. with conflag), damage is only around 3% higher than faction and when combined with -50% tracking, they plain suck. In long range ammo, scorch is by far the best, followed by barrage and then far back is null. 2) Pirate faction BS besides the Nightmare. Let's face it, all of the faction BS besides the Nightmare are quite mediocre, especially the Vindicator. 3) Deimos. You guys KNOW the Deimos is fubar, you even went so far as making changes to it on test server, but because you made poor changes and people whined, you scrapped the changes you had (good) but then completely forgot about it (bad).
HankMurphy Minmatar XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.06.08 02:50:00 - [949] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Typically sets of changes will come in waves as we move between sprints so you could expect weeks of silence then an explosion of sticky threads again :) Well CCP Chronotis, we all look forward to your next sticky explosion. snicker
SmokeyJones	Posted - 2009.06.08 03:27:00 - [950] 1) Armor Tanking vs Shield Tanking - Shield tanking is more effective than armor, for PvP and PvE. Passive shield tankers have less drawback. 2) T2 ammo - Need some love. Too many draw back for a few damage bonus. Dont worth use it. 3) Drone ships rebalance - Drone ships aren't good for PvE (Sleepers) and PvP. Drones are easy to kill and hard to replace. I got myself in trouble so many times because they got killed, and retract and delivery them affect your dps.

Resalan	Posted - 2009.06.08 09:16:00 - [951] 1) projectile weapons mainly artillery but autocannons need some love too. 2)tempest just give it something to make it on par with current metagame. 3)rapier and huggin remove target painter bonus for a web strenght bonus
Selassie M	Posted - 2009.06.08 11:59:00 - [952] Edited by: Selassie M on 08/06/2009 11:59:12 1) Fix rockets, they just don't do any kind of damage. A basic rifter laughs at your malediction. 2) Give AFs a 4th bonus, and that should be a damage bonus. 3) This combined makes the vengeance a terrible ship, 107 dps with all skills at lvl V and a ballistic control system II, assuming rockets would hit for full damage which is never the case. My punisher performs better.
oMAKo Gallente Kiroshi Group Exiliar Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.10 02:11:00 - [953] 1. Med/Large Blasters - More tracking/DPS 2. Gal Recon RSD role bonus. Needs a buff - 10% per lvl 3. Diemost! just no reason to fly this over a buffer fitted brutix. Needs that MWD bonus swapped with somthing useful and an extra mid.
ArcticPrism	Posted - 2009.06.10 05:12:00 - [954] Edited by: ArcticPrism on 10/06/2009 05:12:34 Originally by: 1600 RT 1)artillery of all size double damage mod adjust rof to keep the same dps. 2)autocannon of all size increase falloff with the size of the gun, bring dps in line with other weapon systems (less than blaster, more than laser). 3)minmatar ships are too heavy, minmatar are the speedy race and theyr ships are some of the most heavy in space The game would end. I can already do 800 volley with a Jaguar. 1600? 3000+ Destroyers? Camps would just be a bunch of artillery ships. Lock, scramble, dead.
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.06.10 18:42:00 - [955] Originally by: ArcticPrism Edited by: ArcticPrism on 10/06/2009 05:29:33 Edited by: ArcticPrism on 10/06/2009 05:12:34 Originally by: 1600 RT 1)artillery of all size double damage mod adjust rof to keep the same dps. 2)autocannon of all size increase falloff with the size of the gun, bring dps in line with other weapon systems (less than blaster, more than laser). 3)minmatar ships are too heavy, minmatar are the speedy race and theyr ships are some of the most heavy in space The game would end. I can already do 800 volley with a Jaguar. 1600? 2500+ Destroyers? Camps would just be a bunch of artillery ships. Lock, scramble, dead. a thrasher with max skill a rack of 280mm faction ammo and 2 gyro will do 1500 volley damage BEFORE resist. a jaguar with no skill and no tank have 3000 EHP, even a ceptor with nanofiber have more than 1500 ehp and if you get hitted by arty with a ceptor you may rethink what you doing, and we speaking of a ship (the trasher) designed to kick the crap out of frigs. now if we take for example Large arty with 3 gyro and faction ammo you lucky if you do a 6k volley at 30km (with the bad tracking of arty GL at that) average pvp BS will have at least 80k EHP, any cruiser with decent skill and a damage control have more than 6k EHP. artillery was fine when ships had 1/4 of the HP they have actually even if you double arty volley damage its still half effective than the old good times
ArcticPrism	Posted - 2009.06.10 20:11:00 - [956] Originally by: 1600 RT Originally by: ArcticPrism Edited by: ArcticPrism on 10/06/2009 05:29:33 Edited by: ArcticPrism on 10/06/2009 05:12:34 Originally by: 1600 RT 1)artillery of all size double damage mod adjust rof to keep the same dps. 2)autocannon of all size increase falloff with the size of the gun, bring dps in line with other weapon systems (less than blaster, more than laser). 3)minmatar ships are too heavy, minmatar are the speedy race and theyr ships are some of the most heavy in space The game would end. I can already do 800 volley with a Jaguar. 1600? 2500+ Destroyers? Camps would just be a bunch of artillery ships. Lock, scramble, dead. a thrasher with max skill a rack of 280mm faction ammo and 2 gyro will do 1500 volley damage BEFORE resist. a jaguar with no skill and no tank have 3000 EHP, even a ceptor with nanofiber have more than 1500 ehp and if you get hitted by arty with a ceptor you may rethink what you doing, and we speaking of a ship (the trasher) designed to kick the crap out of frigs. now if we take for example Large arty with 3 gyro and faction ammo you lucky if you do a 6k volley at 30km (with the bad tracking of arty GL at that) average pvp BS will have at least 80k EHP, any cruiser with decent skill and a damage control have more than 6k EHP. artillery was fine when ships had 1/4 of the HP they have actually even if you double arty volley damage its still half effective than the old good times 1/4? wow lol. I agree @ battlecruiser/battleship. Seems like a lot in frigate class though, seeing as most don't have very much hp or resists, interceptors especially.
sakit	Posted - 2009.06.13 12:17:00 - [957] Edited by: sakit on 13/06/2009 12:18:58 Gallente Ewar and their specialized ships are broken (Use Griffin vs Maulus as base case in Balance Study) 1) RSDs have been overnerfed both in terms of optimal and fall off - bonus could be tweaked 2) RSD consume too much cap - change so they use the same as racial jammers 3) Targeting range on Gallente EWAR ships should be comparable to their Caldari counterparts MAULUS Suggested tweaks based on all level 5 skills Cap regen 5.8 PG 36 Base Speed 390 Bonus 7.5% Damage 7.5% RSD Targeting 70K Check the stats before binning this suggestion - how many Griffins online and how many Maulus': By extension these points apply to the Celestis etc
Patoa Core Impulse	Posted - 2009.06.14 00:52:00 - [958] 1. Please buff the diemost being hard core gallente sucks when so many gangs are either sniper hacs or rrbs. 2. Drones and disconnects - fix drones so they don't sit in space and die to npcs plz!!! At least make it so you can regain control of your drones when you log back in and don't have to slowboat to pickem up. Watching your expensive drones get popped by rats while you creep towards them isn't fun. 3. Disconnect mechanics - why does a ship warp 1mil km and sit in space for 60 seconds after logging off? To keep us logged in forever when there's a prober in system? (probers can cloak so you never know if there is one) At least make it so if you're cloaked and log off you stay cloaked.
Rouge Drone	Posted - 2009.06.14 19:01:00 - [959] Edited by: Rouge Drone on 14/06/2009 19:01:40 Outdated UI Rig prices Sov mechanics
lech lizdian	Posted - 2009.06.15 23:58:00 - [960] Edited by: lech lizdian on 15/06/2009 23:58:14 Here is my idea to fix Minmatar and Galente tanking ships... i was thinking why the nanobots that make Galante internal tanking better not affect External Reppers... The same for Minmatar shield tanking ships... you have Amarr and Caldari... which have resist bonus which make internal/external reps more effective... but this is not the same with Galente and Minmatar ships... I say change to bonus to include the effectivness of external reps on the ships... so the brutix would be: 5% to med hybdrid turrets... 7.5% to all armor reps... Or for the Mael: bonus to rate of fire 7.5% to shiled boost... it wont make the rr from the ship better.... but it will make rr comming on the ship better... this way it wont make the ships too powerfull and bring them more inline with the other races :)

Darius Kolor	Posted - 2009.06.16 03:21:00 - [961] Edited by: Darius Kolor on 16/06/2009 03:23:27 Empire and War. Edit>> Overview still broken... Much more feature rich and versatile but fundamentally still broken.
Arborz Nos Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.17 00:16:00 - [962] 1. Assualt Frigates Fourth Bonus. 2. Rockets. 3. Pirate Faction Ships. 4. Autocannon Falloff vs Fitting Size.
Ravenal The Fated E.Y	Posted - 2009.06.17 02:01:00 - [963] 1. Ammo: - T2 vs faction ammo. Either the faction ammo is too good or T2 ammo is too crappy. At least add tags to buying faction ammo plus rebalancing the crappy T2 penalties - Rockets (ha ha... funny) 2. Artillery. Arty guns should have the highest DPS of all long range weapons during the first couple of volleys, slowly losing out because of rof and small clip size. Railguns should have the second highest dps after Arties but lose out to lasers after reload. This means that during the first 30 seconds - 1 minute arty guns have the highest dps. Between 1 - 3 minutes railguns should have the highest dps and on 3+ minutes, lasers would have the highest dps (because no reloading). 3. Caldari uber ewarfare. Change to: - ECM = dampening effect - Dampening = missile disruption (similar to tracking disruption) - TD = the same - TP = the same Add warp disruption bonuses to caldari ships and change gallente scrambler bonuses to apply to warp scramblers (not disruptors) 3 1/2: Low sec systems... add more. Currently low sec systems are only about 12% of all the systems in EvE. There needs to be a bigger boarder zone between empire and null sec with more pockets of low sec inside empire. Suggestion how to add more low sec systems: Have the four empires explore and "claim" some new WH systems and build stargates in them (don't take existing WH systems). .
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.17 09:51:00 - [964] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 17/06/2009 09:51:52 Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 17/06/2009 09:51:11 1st) destroyers are underpowered, powergreed of all destroyers should be brought in line with thrasher, and they should all be given an additional slot (mosly mids), the ROF penalty needs to be romoved and/or there effective hp amount increased. Thread here 2nd: large cap batteries are virtually worthless, thread here 3rd: Motherships are useless. Fix Destroyers
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.19 05:40:00 - [965] i think this topic died 60D GTC - shattared link
Jirikisunta	Posted - 2009.06.20 04:55:00 - [966] 1. MOON MINERALS!! The fact that these are still stationary and endless is amazing. Pretty soon everyone in EVE, or at least one of their alts, will be in one of 2-3 alliances, so they can Titan-the-f* out of anyone who tries to take their ISK-printing R64 moons. Respawn, reasonable range of active life, respawn. 2. Minmatar Caps need some love. Naglfar especially just isn't as tough/***ly as the other dreads. 3. Destroyers are USELESS. Except as salvagers. Either make a salvage-specific T2 destroyer, or actually make them viable combat ships again. An additional mid-slot on all of them would help.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.06.20 15:14:00 - [967] are CCP still reading this thread?
Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.21 11:24:00 - [968] 1. Tech 2 BPOs (distributed and everyone else missed the gravy train) 2. Moon minerals (Unlimited ISK for the leaders of alliances who are generally people who got lucky in 1. above) 3. Useless modules (Cap Flux, cap battery, Small smartbombs etc...List is massive)
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.22 06:25:00 - [969] Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor are CCP still reading this thread? Dont think so, they chosen 2 easy to fix ones. Unsticked thread, but it were all time in top so they moed it to feature and ideas :) 60D GTC - shattared link
wtbrandomnamegenerator	Posted - 2009.06.22 19:50:00 - [970] It seems that even though they were reading it, they chose to selectively ignore the outpouring of people wanting lvl 4 missions curtailed, and instead focused on stupid things like ECM drones.

Amasai Starfire Oasis Thalion Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:07:00 - [971] 1. Bounty Hunting(current system is utter crap). I read Dierdra Vaal's proposal and thought it was perfect. 2. ewar drones, webber drones and energy drones are all crap, except for ecm drones, which are O.P. 3. minmattar ships, more improved speed and agility(defensive/strategic) and improved fitting(offensive). whatever is done, they need help WaSaBi
HankMurphy Minmatar XERCORE Cult of War	Posted - 2009.06.24 14:31:00 - [972] Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor are CCP still reading this thread? yes. they usually do while have a good laugh at us on their lunch break
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.06.24 15:02:00 - [973] Time for a Caldari Boost , Like the Amarr Boost that happened a while back. 1) Missiles need to be more powerful , right now missiles never seem like the best option but are allways outdamaged by guns in real PvP situation that could involve death < ranges where warp disruption is effective. 2) Shield Tanking needs a buff. Armor tanking is way more popular atm due to its superior ehp buffer , especially when rr is involved. ( remote shiled boosters should boost more like local shield booster do compared to armor , this is to compensate for lower resists and smaller buffers ) and easier fitting needed to. 3) Replace Kinetic missile bonues with something else , like 5% damage to all. Firing missiles against ( Gallente / Caldari / Amarr ) T2 requires em or thermal or exp missiles , meaning a lvl5 skilled char has no bonus over a lvl1 skilled char.
Otakanishj Gallente Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.06.27 16:56:00 - [974] Originally by: Toramii Edited by: Toramii on 18/04/2009 08:19:53 1. Buff medium and large blasters (or dedicated blaster ships) CCP balancers seem to have overlooked 90% webifiers were originally designed to enable blaster ships to track targets at their abysmal short range. Agreed, the webifier nerf was needed to make smaller ships usable and is welcomed by most people, myself included, but blasters (tracking/dps) were never re-balanced to compensate. Blasterships were not classed as overpowered before the web nerf, blasters are supposed to be the most feared short range weapons ingame, please fix them. 2. T2 Ammo Re-balance T2 ammo to make it an alternative to faction ammo, and remove the rediculous stacking penalties especially the short range varieties. 3. Large Projectiles (Mainly artillery) Increase artillery alpha. ^^ Agree 1. buff Blasters - tracking since web nerf 3. Howies need much love and Large AC's I believe too My number 2. Assault ships - all of them should be about damage and a bit of a tank. Inty's out dps them. for Assault Ships or challenge me to a game... I'll beat you at Chess too - 5 days per move - challenge me
Meyr Gallente Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.06.28 03:17:00 - [975] 1. Make a negative sec status actually have a real penalty. Pirates with lower than a -5 sec status should not be allowed to dock up in Empire stations. They've worked very hard to become outlaws. Make the down side of piracy more than a minor nuisance. If you truly want outlaw status, you have to make a hideout, such as a POS, an Orca, or go to 0.0 (lawless) space. 2. The drone damage bonus on the Helios is an absolute joke. Honestly, a damage bonus on a ship that should never, EVER, see combat??? 3. Have the Faction Navies or Concord occassionally patrol low sec shipping lanes, and give them the ability to kill both ships AND PODS!!!. Have the representatives of Empire space actually DO a bit of law enforcement. Have them patrol a system like Rancer in an inverse ratio to the amount of Industrial, Transport, Freighter, and Jump Freighter traffic through the area. This will allow merchants to use these trade routes, will force out the constant smartbombing gatecamps, but make for richer prizes once traffic gets higher and the patrols get less frequent.
Sparky Heretic	Posted - 2009.06.29 03:07:00 - [976] #1 - MINING - There's more than twice the number of people playing when the mining system was created. Time for an overhaul. Has anyone noticed that TRITANIUM COSTS MORE THAN PYERITE THESE DAYS? That's gone unchecked for far too long. #2 - Lvl 4 missions in high sec. Strangling the economy with inflation as isk is "created" with the bounties and rewards. #3 - 3 way Tie - Naglfar is weak sauce and needs some love, NoS is now pretty useless (though I don't wanna see another nos-domi, thanks), and T2 ammo. Half of the T2 ammo isn't used cause it's just not worth it.
Tranka Verrane Public Venture Enterprises	Posted - 2009.06.29 18:17:00 - [977] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) I have proposed individual wardeccing of players in NPC corps which would remove some of the risk-free nature of this here. Player Since 2005 Over 4000 hours logged
Essence Praetor Retribution. Inc.	Posted - 2009.06.30 13:41:00 - [978] Confirming that CCP is not paying very close attention to 33 pages of opinions
Stealthbug	Posted - 2009.07.01 17:27:00 - [979] Originally by: Dav Varan Edited by: Dav Varan on 24/06/2009 15:07:12 Time for a Caldari Boost , Like the Amarr Boost that happened a while back. 1) Missiles need to be more powerful , right now missiles never seem like the best option but are allways outdamaged by guns in real PvP situation that could involve death < ranges where warp disruption is effective. 2) Shield Tanking needs a buff. Armor tanking is way more popular atm due to its superior ehp buffer , especially when rr is involved. Remote shield boosters should boost more than remote armor, like local shield booster do compared to armor, this is to compensate for lower resists and smaller buffer. Easier fitting needed also. 3) Replace Kinetic missile bonus with something else , like 5% damage to all. Firing missiles against ( Gallente / Caldari / Amarr ) T2 requires em or thermal or exp missiles , meaning a lvl5 skilled char has no bonus over a lvl1 skilled char. This.
Col Angus	Posted - 2009.07.01 18:41:00 - [980] 1) Artillery needs a boost. It needs a greater damage multiplier, but I would take 30% better tracking. 2) Armor buffer tanks are out of control 3) Missiles were nerfed a while back...I think that it was a little severe and should be revisited.

Moonmonkey	Posted - 2009.07.01 20:41:00 - [981] 1. Large Projectiles. Large autocannons and artillery. 2. The speed of minmatar Battleships, a little to slow. 3. Drone aggro in wormholes.
Xianthar STK Scientific The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.01 21:52:00 - [982] In case they are still reading this: 1) Small Missiles: Rockets mostly and Standard Missiles to some extent: useless and make the ships that use them useless (hawk). medium and large missiles are fine IMO 2) Hybrids, Blasters especially, tracking needs a major boost the web nerf hurt them _badly_ medium rails also, i can't think of a medium rail ship that i would describe as effective, small and large seem fine. 3) Hyperion / Deimos: Yea its 2 because they both have the same issue, there is no situation i would use a hyp over a mega or domi and there is no situation i would use a deimos over an ishtar
Chestrano	Posted - 2009.07.01 21:52:00 - [983] 1. Boost Projectiles. My Proposal: Increase Falloff by 15%, Boost Alpha by 25%, decrease ROF (increase time between to shots) by 15%. Minmatar should be an close range race, but at this time it sucks at any range. It would still be worse then Amarr on long range, but better in close range. The increase of Aplha and decrease of Rof would solve the clip size problem. 2. Boost Tempest. It would still suck, even if you boost projectiles. 3. Create an T2 Gallente drone BS. You would make me very happy :)
Bobbechk The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.01 22:30:00 - [984] Originally by: Chestrano 3. Create an T2 Gallente drone BS. You would make me very happy :) ehum.....
Facepalm Amarr Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.07.02 02:38:00 - [985] 1) Titans. There's no way 1 player should have that much power (regardless of how many people it took to put that player in the ship). We're now entering the advanced age of the game where the "power" alliances have dozens of titans to burn while the rest of EVE sits there and cringes when the bubble goes up. Again. 2) PVE. The game needs more challenging, dynamic, FUN PVE content (quests, instances, whatever) for the carebear crowd. Yes this is a PVP game but look at what population of EVE has never stepped foot into lowsec and why most massively successful games (WoW anyone?) out there have strong, low-risk, fun and robust PVE content. This is the only scifi MMORPG like it out there and I see it losing so many opportunities for fun because of its harshness. You can have both fun and risk aspects. By the way, Ambulation looks like it's a complete waste of development time that could be spent on making the "real game" part of this game more fun. 3) UI. All sorts of bugs and a lack of attention for 6 years. Just another layer of polish and user-friendliness overall. Overcomplexity of overview, buggy lagging UI, lack of options, lack of diversity when entering different ships, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road for anyone playing this game and it's always been overly awkward for me.
BaneMaker Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.02 07:04:00 - [986] 1) Hybrid turrets - especially medium and large blasters are horribly subpar, and not the melt-machine they where intended - also see 3) web nerf in this respect - the large ones has been hit terribly by the web nerf, so tracking and dmg needs to have a slight adjustment 2) Minmater generally subpar - After the speednerf and with the current poor state of artillery, it is hard to see any reason to fly minmatar. Overall speed and agility should be improved - then people will be ok with the poor damage of most miniie boats (take into account falloff) 3) Webnerf - although it was a good way of making small ships viable again, it hurt the large blasters horribly. Also - dedicated webber boats like the rapier, huginn, kronos and that frigate I cant remember should have an increased webber effect - maybe as a role bonus. To keep having some small ships viable, then make the AF missing 4th bonus into an webber imunity bonus. That would make AFs really nice tacklers too.
Yaponiz	Posted - 2009.07.02 19:16:00 - [987] 1. Combat Utility Drones - they useless except ECM, but ECM is not good too. 2. Rockets and defenders. 3. Covert Ops - No one covert ops can use all of they bonuses.
keuel Gallente Heretic Army Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.07.03 08:20:00 - [988] 1) Webnerf: it killed blaster boats. Why the hell did you put 60%? why not adress 70%? and give the officer ones the range of before,make them worth the price. 2) Doomsday device: nerf it already, you see it already can kill a carrier, it¦s time to give penality to it. Why not adress 5 minutes without warping and absolutely no remote (or can be one or other) so, it can make the titan pilot think 2 times before DD`ing. 3) Neutralizers: Especially heavy ones. They suck massively ammounts of cap, a cruiser,bc sized ship cap can be killed pretty easy. Reduce the danm neutralizer drain ammount. 4) (Sorry, remembered this):EHP VS Active tank: Don¦t you think it¦s already time to see the buffer tanks?
Odinegras Gallente 0utbreak KrautbreaK	Posted - 2009.07.04 08:16:00 - [989] 1. Ewar - Falcon - Can prevent 4-6 ships from having locks, Arazu struggles to stop 1 target from having a lock, Pilgrim can be fitted with multiple tracking disruptors but this still doesnt lock down 1 target, Rapier (minmatar) has no real form of Ewar, Changes add in additional module for minmatar a missile targeting system scrambler (any missiles the target fires misses) add in 3 more "target painters" 1 for each race each working specifically with each races weapon systems (Gallente - Hybrids etc) Boost dampners so that 1 damp can lock down 1 target ish (as it was before), remove chance from ECM (but make ECCM work ie you can switch this module on and it stops the jam, after you have been jammed), add a module that reverses the effect of the new missile jammer (Missile targeting system augmentor) 2. Locking Speeds - I wanna lock stuff faster without having to fit 3billion sensor boosters, i feel this needs looking into. Catching people should be a skill not luck based (dont forget that due to lag, connection speed etc we already lose a couple of seconds on getting a lock) either that or bring in more interdictors (Mammoth Dictors ie Tech2 Tier2 BC dictors, active tanks, same module as heavy Dics but with more range and able to fit command modules) the new big gates also make it hard to catch targets with dictors which is kinda nice but frustrating at times, especially since you have to anchor 6 large bubbles to make sure you can lock a system down. 3. Blasters - Increase their tracking a tad now that webs have been reduced in effectiveness also an increase in blaster fall off now speed has been reduce would also be good.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.07.05 02:20:00 - [990] Originally by: Essence Praetor Confirming that CCP is not paying very close attention to 33 pages of opinions Look! They stickied it (again, for the 3rd time), that means they care, Right? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.

Mineralia TheFirst	Posted - 2009.07.06 21:44:00 - [991] 1) moon mining needs nerv 2) sovereignety-cynojammers-jumpbridges needs brand new balance 3) normal mining needs a boost
CaptainFalcon07	Posted - 2009.07.07 04:11:00 - [992] Myrmidon and Eos improvements. I love the look of the myrm, I've used it quite a bit on level 3 missions. But there was always something that bothered me. Its dps is barely higher than a vexor. Sure its got better tanking ability, but that's something that ALL battle cruisers have. And all battle cruisers should superior firepower to their smaller cousins. The Myrmidon has NO GUN BONUS unlike the vexor which has one. All full level, the vexor gun bonus turns its 4 guns into 5. The myrmidon has 6 guns, but no bonus. The big problem comes to the drone bandwidth: Vexor has 75mb, the myrmidon has 75mb. The only difference is that the myrmidon has a bigger drone bay. And only dps advantage is having another turret slot. Speaking of drone bandwidth, the EOS is another victim of this. 75mb!? You've got to be kidding me! The Ishtar is a lower tier ship than the EOS and it has 125mb AND a 375m3 drone bay. Oh and the EOS has NO DRONE DAMAGE BONUSES. Alright, so there is the difference in turrets slots, but this expected. A t2 battlecruiser should be clearly superior to a t2 cruiser in firepower. With the gimping of the EOS, its a No-brainer to take the Astarte over it, unless you want to use gang links. Even the faction Vexor Navy Issue has more bandwidth than these ships. Would it be problem to just increase the drone bandwidth of both the EOS and the Myrmidon at least 25mb, giving them at least 100mb each? I propose at least a 25m3 drone bandwidth increase to both the EOS and the myrmidon. Making the myrmidon a TRUE border between the vexor and the dominix. The EOS with its better bandwidth will giving players more reason to use it. Is it too much to ask for?
Yonis Giosar	Posted - 2009.07.09 20:44:00 - [993] 1. Faction Ships need to be better 2. Rockets need to be better 3. Assault Frigates need to be better
Leina Kubyeshev	Posted - 2009.07.12 21:36:00 - [994] 1. Rockets are laughable. 2. 0.0 Sov mechanics. 3. Boost arty but slightly increasing clip size, increasing alpha by 20% and reducing ROF 15%.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.13 19:15:00 - [995] Warfare links should get easier fitting, look who is fiting them. Comand ships with 3 links ? Means lowest guns and 3 fiting mods....... 60D GTC - shattared link
Raukho Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.07.15 13:49:00 - [996] 1. Moongold Promethium and Dysprosium prices are still going up clearly indicating that there is a lack of these products in the market. Currently the moons are held by a small part of the playerbase. These will become richer and richer with minimal effort. They are so rich that they can afford any losses to defend their space and moons. This will lead to a stalemate in the game. 2. Titans and then specifically doomsdaying even double / triple doomsdaying. Keep jumpbridge function see point 3. 3. Jumpbridges allow for to fast response and thus holding larger amounts of space.
Tranka Verrane Public Venture Enterprises	Posted - 2009.07.15 22:33:00 - [997] TL; DR, so apologies if this isn't the first such post but... War Dec Mechanics need looking at. It is ridiculously cheap for single corps to wardec and curtails the playing of the game too much. I don't claim to have all the answers on this one but the debate needs to be started. Player Since 2005 Over 4000 hours logged
Dawne Xi Minmatar 3D Salvage and Acquisitions	Posted - 2009.07.20 01:07:00 - [998] Originally by: Sparky Heretic #1 - MINING - There's more than twice the number of people playing when the mining system was created. Time for an overhaul. Has anyone noticed that TRITANIUM COSTS MORE THAN PYERITE THESE DAYS? That's gone unchecked for far too long. #2 - Lvl 4 missions in high sec. Strangling the economy with inflation as isk is "created" with the bounties and rewards. I like these two. They go hand in hand. I would also add loot drops to #2 having a direct effect on the mining profession problem. Not only is ISK created, so are minerals. CCP has a limited quantity of minerals that can be created through mining, they control the belt spawns. CCP have very little control over the creation of minerals through reprocessing loot from missions though and it's ruining the economy slowly. Something needs to be done to curb or control the loot drop minerals or the entire economy will crumble.
Zan Atropus	Posted - 2009.07.20 17:06:00 - [999] Highend moons need looking at, i do not in any way disagree with the value they can bring the holder cause it costs a lot of efford to take a moon. What i am talking about is the maintnence it takes to keep a moon running, not the reaction just the mining. Its stupid that the maintnence basically is the same for a R64, R32, R16 ect. there should be a significat diffrence between them. First and properly easiest solution is to make the change just like with normal Ore where high end ore take up a lot more space then low end Ore. Atm it doesnt look like it is very well balanced as all the moon ore have the same size 1m3 and thus the less ore you mine (high end ore) the more you can mine with out maintainence. This is the only place in the game i can think off where the high end ore are easier to move then the low end (Compared to Gas, Ore, Pompounds). And before anyone goes off the board and talk about refined mineral size let me remind you its a reprocessed material not a raw material. Second and a nice addition to the game would be a POS minigame. The basis for this is that everything in EVE moves and at some point a vain of any resource have got to run dry and you have to move like mining. Im not suggesting that the highend moons start depleting only that a game is introduced across the board for recalibrating the moon miner, you basically would have to find a new vain on the planets surface and focus the mining beam on it. The balance here would be that as moon ore gets more and more abundant you would have to do less recalibration. The new vain on the planet might also be significantly easier to find for low end moon ore then hign end moon ore.
Fridge Chesthair	Posted - 2009.07.24 05:15:00 - [1000] Hmm.. Some thoughts about what I think are useless or semi useless bits of the game that have been forgotten over time. Items:: T2 Ammo - T2 needs distinct advantages over standard and faction ammo to validate their existence. EWAR Drones - I don't use them. I don't know anyone who does. Some ECM drones are supposedly overpowered. Most of the other EWAR drones seem useless. Drone Nav Link & Omnidirectional Tracking Link - They only seem useful with specific drone combinations. Very few people use those combinations. Maybe reconsider their modifier values to make them a plausible choice for a mid slot. Logistics Drones - Do the light drones serve a purpose? An extra +5m3 on many ships would allow for an extra (non-combat drone?) and a bit more utility. Do they gain from ship bonuses (Domi, Myrm??) Mining Drones - UMM... For me, they carry too little to replace other drones on mining ops. Ships with drone bonuses aren't a suitable substitute for a mining barge/exhumer. Implants - Market prices have skyrocketed in the past months. I assume people are being podded in WH space. Are drop rates or sp cost going to be adjusted to compensate? Is 750m for a set of +5's acceptable? ECCM - Current ECM ships seem to nullify the usefulness of these units. Also, do they work against rats like they do against players? ECM Burst - Shouldn't these have a few more uses? Make them useful against drones? Projected ECCM - See ECCM. Survey Scanners - Do these currently serve a point? Make them mandatory for identifying ore above a certain quality? CPU upgrades - Do we have duplicates for a reason? Auxilary Power Controls - Do you use these on frigates? Hull Repair - Very few ships have large enough hulls to make these commonly used. Smartbombs - Very specific uses. Uses (shooting down grouped missiles) are different from nature (untargeted damage to large groups or close targets). Indicate anti-missile use in description for newbs? Defense Missiles - Indeterminate targeting. Allow countering of specific indicated targets. FoF Missiles - Indeterminate targeting as well. Lower damage + unspecific targets ruins combat usefullness. Provide constant well defined criterion for targeting system (ie. closest target, largest sig, etc.) Manufacturing:: Rigs - Rig manufacturing is spotty. The uselessness of many rigs makes their blueprints a questionable investment and of questionable value. Do salvage drop rates correspond with usage rates?

Ethan Hunte Ninjas With Frikkin StarShips	Posted - 2009.07.25 19:29:00 - [1001] 1) fighters. they suck, their expensive and they die easily. everyone (like smart people) brings a couple smart bombing bs to 'protect' their fleet when knowing they're gonna be facing a large amount of fighters from a carrier fleet. boost their resists, or something, do something to make them not suck 2) motherships, just a carrier on bad steroids. make them useful like a titan, titans can bridge. and kill fleets when used right. ms = nothing special.
Bloody2k Gallente SCHWARZSCHILD.	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:52:00 - [1002] 1\| The duration of the industrial core is to long. Is is nearly unable to use it without a pos. If the duration is just 1 or 2 minutes you will see more of them in belt¦s.(scout will be able to warn) So it`s mostly used as a fitable jump freighter. 2\| The warp speed is to high! Set them 1/3! 1AU/s is already 500 times faster than light is...it is enougth for ships bigger than frig size. So EVE will become really huge. 3\| Insert a covert command ship to close the space between t2 covert-ops-cruiser and the black ops, based on tier2 BC. Signature needs to be EVE related, please change. ~Weatherman
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.07.27 16:14:00 - [1003] Come on CCP. Isn time for another thread for a selected issue ideas collection? Aren't you moving into an agile methodology? The stream of focused fixes like the SBomber then ECM then naglfar one was running great. If you can keep up with that there will be no reason for anyone to complain of anything. Can I suggest not so complex, but broad affecting things like T2 ammo ? Damage and tracking are some quite straight forward issues that do not have many side effects except.. well damage. Or maybe the Minmatar large ships issues that had so many ideas presented last 2 months that you only need to select one....
Max Gank	Posted - 2009.07.28 12:02:00 - [1004] 70-80% of HAC total price is made up of Ferrogel & Fermionic condensates, making others rather irrelevant. In addition, researching component blueprints only makes this worse. Each component blueprint having those rare materials already requires just 1 ferrogel or 1 fermionic and 1 ferrogel. Researching these reduces the consumption of just the more common materials. With the advent of invention, the average amounts of moon minerals used per ship have increased, while the amount of moon materials has more or less been constant on high-ends. This tends to create upward pressure on the prices of the rarest moon materials and I only expect it to get worse over time. Drones should have a 'landing' state of 30 seconds after being pulled in, during which time they cannot be re-deployed. Fix ECM: Secretly roll a number just once for every ship every 30 seconds, then stack the effects of all the ECM directed towards one ship. Just one roll, no ifs and no buts. Because of the random nature of the thing, make 5% of rolls always automatic failures and another 5% automatic successes. Locking times: It has always puzzled me why bigger ships with more room for more powerful sensors lock targets slower. It just doesn't make any sense except maybe on some gameplay balancing issues.
DasNara Aethelwulf Blackwater Syndicate Raining Doom	Posted - 2009.07.28 16:36:00 - [1005] mining missions - lets see, have mining in them.....this %10 of mining missions having mining is a little stupid. 80% courier is a little much for mining. And while on the topic, lets try not to have courier missions as the defualt when you couldnt think of a storyline. How about having astro surveying missions now take you into a wormhole... but please, lets have more than one rock in the "mining mission" and more than 10% of the missions involve you mining. Thank you My left is in retreat, my center is giving way; situation excellent, I attack - Joffe 1916
tlmitf	Posted - 2009.07.29 01:52:00 - [1006] 1) Blasters 2) Missions 3) ECM 1) Blasters The balance between range and damage with the blaster has been nerfed a bit hard. Take a T2 Neutron Blaster fitted to my hyperion - i have 4.5km optimal and 12km falloff. That puts me well inside web range, and well inside everyone else's optimal weapon range. The powergrid required to fit such a big blaster makes fitting tank almost impossable. Propose slightly upping the damage mod for the T2 blasters - any ship that the Neutron Blaster II is fitted to isn't going to be able to fit much in the way of a tank anyway. Personally i would like to see the blasters returned to the top of the DPS heap - afterall, they have the shortest range. 2) Missions There needs to be lvl 5 agents available in highsec - i dont care if they are ****ty QL -20, but there needs to be something done about the missions. As i understand the mission system, the lvl 4 missions were suppost to be taxing on a BS pilot. When i first started lvl 4 missions they cost me many many megathrons, and thats good :) Once i got skills up, now i see how fast i can run them - hell, i even have a list of lvl 4 missions that i can run WITHOUT A REPPER! Lvl 4 missions use to be a case of getting a few mates together (sometimes in a logistics BS) and running missions carefully, so as to survive. Putting some lvl 5 agents into highsec would give us something to do with our faction/T2 Battleships and massive tanks. When we want to go run some lvl 5 missions, we all pile into small T2 ships or T1 BS's. Parking our faction/T2 BS's in station and taking something that we are willing to loose to gankers. 3) ECM You need to totally revamp the way ECM works. ECM sucks - we all hate being on the recieving end of it. What really bites me is that its a % chance, not some kind of propper ECM. ECM should be a case of numbers - If the attacker has more points than the victim, then the attacker wins. This scales everything quite nicely - your going to need more than one module to shut down a BS - but once he is shutdown, its shutdown till the attackers say so. This sounds nasty and ruthless - but fitting a ECCM module will suddenly become an effective counter. Calderi/Minmatar have a weak ECM counter in FoF Missiles - but the turret boats are left dead in the water. Something needs to be done to the way ECM is calculated - getting ECM'd from some frig that has 5 points fitted, verses the 23 sensor strength a hyperion has? Perhaps some kind of scalable effect, with a full loss of targeting if your sensor strength is reduced to zero? Something like the sensor damper effect. Im not exactly sure how to fix it and keep it balanced - but the way its 'working' now is a joke.
Rawbin Hood Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.07.29 14:12:00 - [1007] Edited by: Rawbin Hood on 29/07/2009 14:13:10 1. Artillery or planet surface control 2. An anchorable warpin in inhibitor for high sec (for mission runners) 3. More Ships =D or planet surface control just my opinion ◄Brutor► The Movement Because the human race can do better as a whole (despite these forums, they don't count)
Ava Starfire	Posted - 2009.07.29 17:27:00 - [1008] 1) Level 4 missions. Everyone seems to be grabbing their pitchforks and torches about this but, in ways, they do need changed. Meta 0 Tech 1 items should NOT drop in missions, as far too many minerals come from reprocessing this stuff. It would serve a double purpose of reducing L4 income by about 30%, and make mining, and hence low/nullsec ores, worth more once again. Everyone wins. Leave the missions alone, nerf loot drops BIGTIME. Good loot should be rare, or come from complexes. Maybe offset this with better rats in lowsec systems (ratting there atm is NOT worth the risk) 2) Large projectiles are every shade of horrible. 3) Large projectiles suck bad enough they merit mention twice.
Shigawahhhhh Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.07.30 01:31:00 - [1009] 1) Risk vs Reward Either level 4s need to be bought close to there old standard of hard (pre rigs) or we need level 5s moved into high sec. I've tried some on sisi and they seem to be good fun but there is no way I am taking a expensive battleship out there to do them just so it can be gank fodder. Ratting also doesn't have the right Risk Vs Reward ratio. If your good at level 4s you can make a comparable amount of isk per hour however your not ever gonna get ganked. With 0.0 sooner or later you will get ganked. If your good it will take a lot longer but given that inherent risk rats in 0.0 need to pay better or have better drops (maybe bump up the meta level they drop). 2) Drops Does anyone actually want another miner I? Maybe going to far but remove all t1 loot and only drop the named items and up there bounties slightly so mission runners don't get shafted out of there isk but there is actually some value in producing things again. 3) Walking in stations Would add a lot of roleplay and social to eve.
Ollora Denebe	Posted - 2009.07.30 16:00:00 - [1010] Originally by: CCP Nozh <snip>Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. Order. There is none. Chaos rules. If you're twelve and just want to play for the pewpew, EVE's for you. If you're like me, and came from a background of growing up with Elite and Privateer, expecting depth, exploration, fair combat thats based on real skill and not a spreadsheet, you're going to be sorely disappointed. "Always be room for improvement" - you've got an empty battleship to fill, buckaroo - that's how much room you have for improvement. Nice positive spin though, I don't think there's an aspect of EVE that doesn't need improvement. 1.) Lack of accountability. This fundamental problem is what causes these children to go out of their way to grief players, break game mechanics and generally be a nuisance to everyone. There is no real governing force with no real power in the game - the only "crime" is killing people which is silly since capsuleers are immortal, and the punishment is to blow their ship up? That's not a punishment, it's a joke. Oh, and you're "criminal record" only lasts 15 minutes, so just wait and you're okay. 2.) Game Mechanics. Elite, Privateer, Freelance, Space Empires... these ALL did a much better job at EVERYTHING EVE has tried to do with the exception of being an MMO (kudos to the DB people). Other than that, EVE is so broken, everytime CCP comes in to ask "how do we fix it" I want to puke. Because they'll just do what the adolescent boys want which is more pewpew. 3.) You seem more focused on balancing COMBAT while at the same time making EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE GAME BORING. Aside from being a pirate, the game is just tedious grinding (mining, hauling, manufacturing the exact same crap buddy next door is mining hauling and manufacturing). Skills take forever, and the real-time skill system is just outright stupid (I'd love to know how a skill makes my cargo space bigger...). Inevitably, it only ruins the new-player experience and makes it impossible to ever be on equal footing with other players as there's no "entropy", no ability to really "loose", especially beyond a certain level. CCP is about to die. That's my prediction. With PLEXs, the long-time players won't need to pay CCP anymore, but because they're the majority, CCP will go out of their way to appease them. Soon we'll have Tech-4 ships which cost 100 billion to make and take another six months to learn the skills for, because artificial stratefication is so much fun! And in the end, no one will want to start playing EVE fresh. No new players. No one to actually play the bills. And then, pop. Good bye.

Lusulpher Dirkistan Raining Doom	Posted - 2009.07.31 10:39:00 - [1011] Originally by: Ollora Denebe Originally by: CCP Nozh <snip>Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. Order. There is none. Chaos rules. If you're twelve and just want to play for the pewpew, EVE's for you. If you're like me, and came from a background of growing up with Elite and Privateer, expecting depth, exploration, fair combat thats based on real skill and not a spreadsheet, you're going to be sorely disappointed. "Always be room for improvement" - you've got an empty battleship to fill, buckaroo - that's how much room you have for improvement. Nice positive spin though, I don't think there's an aspect of EVE that doesn't need improvement. 1.) Lack of accountability. This fundamental problem is what causes these children to go out of their way to grief players, break game mechanics and generally be a nuisance to everyone. There is no real governing force with no real power in the game - the only "crime" is killing people which is silly since capsuleers are immortal, and the punishment is to blow their ship up? That's not a punishment, it's a joke. Oh, and you're "criminal record" only lasts 15 minutes, so just wait and you're okay. 2.) Game Mechanics. Elite, Privateer, Freelance, Space Empires... these ALL did a much better job at EVERYTHING EVE has tried to do with the exception of being an MMO (kudos to the DB people). Other than that, EVE is so broken, everytime CCP comes in to ask "how do we fix it" I want to puke. Because they'll just do what the adolescent boys want which is more pewpew. 3.) You seem more focused on balancing COMBAT while at the same time making EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE GAME BORING. Aside from being a pirate, the game is just tedious grinding (mining, hauling, manufacturing the exact same crap buddy next door is mining hauling and manufacturing). Skills take forever, and the real-time skill system is just outright stupid (I'd love to know how a skill makes my cargo space bigger...). Inevitably, it only ruins the new-player experience and makes it impossible to ever be on equal footing with other players as there's no "entropy", no ability to really "loose", especially beyond a certain level. CCP is about to die. That's my prediction. With PLEXs, the long-time players won't need to pay CCP anymore, but because they're the majority, CCP will go out of their way to appease them. Soon we'll have Tech-4 ships which cost 100 billion to make and take another six months to learn the skills for, because artificial stratefication is so much fun! And in the end, no one will want to start playing EVE fresh. No new players. No one to actually play the bills. And then, pop. Good bye. EVE is dying. 7
AeonOfTime Minmatar Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.07.31 11:09:00 - [1012] 1) T2 ammo and frequency crystals 2) Armor tanks < Shield tanks 3) Some high-end skills like Talocan Technology are pretty much useless -- Read the captain's log at eve.aeonoftime.com The solo player's corporation - Syrkos Technologies
Brutere Shadow Incursion Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.07.31 16:44:00 - [1013] 1. Guns stop shooting when you go into a pos, why should missiles be able to go inside and pop you while you're repping? I have never seen anyone mention this. Seems to me that this makes missiles superior when fighting on a pos. 2. Projectile weapons. Not enough tracking, crappy RoF, and sometimes very low DPS. 3. Fix warp bubbles! I know it is a new effect, but the fluctiation is dumb. When I am CLEARLY outside of a bubble it gives me the annoying notify "Please get blah blah away from blah blah before trying to warp." This is annoying. When you are outside of a bubble, you should be able to see it, not only find out when you click warp.
bjtardiff	Posted - 2009.07.31 20:35:00 - [1014] 1. Boost/fix nighthawk compared to other command ships 2. reduced fitting 4 shield transfer arrays 3. Fix Black ops.
Allen Ramses Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.01 02:39:00 - [1015] 1. Insurance still exists. 2. RR still exists. 3. 1 minute disengage allowance still exists. Give the game some consequence, ffs. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.
Helicity Boson Amarr The Python Cartel.	Posted - 2009.08.02 02:03:00 - [1016] 1) rockets. I mean really, all other weapon systems that have significant range disadvantage have a large damage component that balances this out and makes them useful. Rockets do comparatively puny damage, have terrible range, and even lack the falloff mechanic if something is out of range. 2) low-sec is not valuable Please place high value resources and/or mission hubs in low sec to encourage more traffic other than faction warfare blobs and crazy pirates to go there. risk vs reward, the reward is not there. 3) 0.0 is not forced into self-sufficiency enough. Its far, far too easy to supply 0.0 from the risk free regions of empire. want to live out in frontier space? then build (most) your own ships and modules there. My noobish Khanid Pirate blog: http://helicityboson.blogspot.com/
Letifer Deus Bannable Offense. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.08.02 17:18:00 - [1017] 1) T3 sub balancing. Many of the subs are currently laughable or have certain aspects that make no sense. Dissolution sequencer for the legion giving +4 mods, "drone" subs on proteus giving you a terrible version of an ishtar, proteus (the one ship that would probably use it, as it doesn't kite) being the one ship w/o the fuel catalyst sub. Every T3 BUT the proteus (which DOES kite) not getting localized injectors. This stuff really isn't that hard to fix. So do it. You say they are "different, not necessarily better." Newsflash: If it is different from a HAC, but not better, noone is going to fly it when it costs 3-8 times as much. 2) Fix the balance issues between null, barrage and SCORCH. I fly amarr, I love scorch, but we all know it is FAR more useful (esp. when combined with zero reload time) than null/barrage. 3) For the love of God, fix the f'ing Deimos. YOU KNOW it is broken, so fix it. Again, not that hard to throw something together and give it a try on SISI. This would be less annoying if you hadn't acknowledge it over a year ago, put changes on SISI and then dropped them last minute because noone liked your changes, never to speak of it again. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Bozse Reikoku	Posted - 2009.08.03 16:58:00 - [1018] 1. Sov warfare, been broken in one way or another since it was introduced. 2. Super Capitals, lack of tank, to easy to hold down between hic's, dictors and bumping, useless in battles besides to DD due to there weakness and so on. 3. ECM , Chance based ability to render a ship usless in combat was a bad idea when you changed it and it still is, allso overpowered in every aspect compared to all other EW I'll cheat a bit and add a 4th as Sov/POS/Super caps is so closely related. 4. Highend moon mining, invention was added to solve the bottleneck of t2 bpo's and people told you that highend moons would just be the next bottleneck, guess what .... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
Echo Gemini Minmatar Love My Darkness	Posted - 2009.08.05 15:29:00 - [1019] 1. Drone damage output. I would like to see some drone attributes changing when fitting a drone-rig or drone-module on the ship ... and the notice or the written drone damage. 2. Ships in general! How come a 100.000.000+ kg ship is taken down by a 75 - 2000 kg weapon (with 1kg projectile). Is like fighting a tank with a sling and manage to kill him. And how come a 500 kg module can repair all ship?!.. What's that a swiss-knife, that can cut, screw, light up and fix? 3. New physics ... Involving space colors, objects interaction, light, space anomalies and all the good stuff! Do it CCP! Do it! Thaaaank you!..
Echo Gemini Minmatar Love My Darkness	Posted - 2009.08.05 15:51:00 - [1020] Edited by: Echo Gemini on 05/08/2009 15:56:27 1. Minmatar ships with missile + turrets! Two very different weapons, is like mixing water with oil! 2. T2 ammo ... never used it (maybe sometimes) ... never will! 3. Rockets, missiles and artillery! Bad bad bad ... 4. EW modules for low slots! 5. Ban the f***' isk sellers and the spammers! -> empire lv4 missions are ok ( ... don't blame that! Stop buy isk you hypocrites pieces of ** ). Come on! Is not that hard! 6. Concord should attack too, from 0.3 to 0.5 (safer travel to low-sec, cuz pirates, from one point a view, are grievers too)!.. Faction pirates should spawn at gates and start attacking player which have low standings with the current faction (again .3 - .5)! 7. Amarr drones are kinda useless ... do something about it ( maybe add thermal damage ) ...

Saurish	Posted - 2009.08.08 19:55:00 - [1021] Adding correct corporation wardec system: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1142576
El Liptonez	Posted - 2009.08.12 16:01:00 - [1022] 1. Sov warfare. Space is too small to guarantee a small alliance (200-500) can occupy any non-npc system, let alone having sov in it. Large alliances hold their space too easily. 2. Expand the galaxy. More regions, nerf jump brigdes, portals and jump clones. Moving 60 jumps from empire to your dead-end 0.0 system in 20 seconds... And don't forget to fix moons. 3. Move rewards from high sec to low sec/0.0. Nerf missions slighty, increase rat spawn quality of low sec/0.0 high sec.
Missy Miner85	Posted - 2009.08.12 20:57:00 - [1023] So.... not that i dont appriciate the Naglfar changes and all but a lot of people posted on this subject but it seems to have died out?
MR DEMOS	Posted - 2009.08.13 00:06:00 - [1024] 1) Rockets 2) System Limits on how many Systems a 0.0 Alliance can hold based on a complex equation taking into account Number in Alliance Skills of the CEO in the Holding corp Ect. Also Allow those Alliance to develop the Space they hold. Outposts with Agents and ways to exploit what they own on a different level.
Lusulpher Dirkistan Raining Doom	Posted - 2009.08.13 04:49:00 - [1025] Edited by: Lusulpher on 13/08/2009 04:56:33 Ships-They lack promised dronebay space. Make Capitals near-immortal with higher base resists+HP/less anti-support capability/implement EWAR Achilles heel/attach a support cost for merely owning Capitals. Sovereignty-Lowsec is not special/defensible. Nullsec has to compete with ISK-generation in HIGHSEC! Mining has to compete with mineral-generation from missions! NO specific economic bonus from sovving Nullsec?! Planets better have a role after Fanfest. And one that forces lots of chaotic movement around system so blobs don't get to steamroll them. Modules-Nos needs a cycle reduction to always keep cap equalized. T2 ammo needs rebonusing. EWAR drones need boost. ECM is fine. Nerf fighter tracking so they are not a threat to cruisers or smaller. Buff fighter HP and damage. Skills-Put the smuggling book back on the market. Fix police on gates. Look at some of those minimum thresholds again. Remapping needs to be every 6 months. EVEMon needs to be ingame. All the implants ingame, please. Carebear stuff-Why does mining not even grab my attention? no space for minigame among all those pretty rocks? Epic Missions are supposed to have content deployed faster. Do it. Soon. First batch not so "epic". COSMOS does not take priority over Ambulation... Level 4 missions don't have any ship/sec status/repeat triggers or random EWAR/plot changes, each time you activate a session. Why? Add an extra set of scram frigs dammit. Or an NPC traitor who reps you/shoots down other NPCs... Public Relations-How's Ambulation coming along? How's WOD coming along? How's joystick flight coming along? how's Interbus Service coming along? God knows we need it. How's Planetary Flight/Orbital Bombardment coming along? How's Asteroid Colonization coming along? Can haz cutscene for docking/undocking? Hate that loading screen there now... Any plans for simplified avatarless bridge views/ship interiors? How are the rest of the animations/effects with the new client coming along? Cyno,cloak/decloak, wormholes all look poo. How are HD backgrounds, binary+ solar models for each system coming along? Do you have a PR department? Are they well-paid? Why are you paying them? Spent more time telling you how to fix the [best freakin' bloody] game. 7
ooeexx	Posted - 2009.08.13 15:35:00 - [1026] http://www.65911.com/images/bif-naked1.jpg http://www.65911.com/images/bif-naked2.jpg Naked Girls Get gkrs]ypzs Interrupted My first starring role and I've got 4 hot naked girls walking next to me. Hollywood watch out, here I come! See more of my
Iva Soreass Gentlemen Bastards	Posted - 2009.08.13 23:41:00 - [1027] A way to help fix standings which go beyond the -5 mark. You have goto implement a way for players who didnt know how this would effect them when 1st starting out untill later on in there eve life when its to late and even with diplo 5 it dont help. Please resize sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 - Mitnal
Ithalia Temper	Posted - 2009.08.17 19:06:00 - [1028] This is just my personal list, I'm sure there are plenty of other pressing issues, but this is my immediate beef list. 1) Blasters.....so many disadvantages and too few advantages. Can't field them in spidertank gangs due to the RR range, on top of the "War and Peace" sized list of other issues already listed by other posters. A blaster boat should strike fear into an opponent up close, not laughter (I'm not kidding on this one, I've been laughed at for fielding a blaster boat in a roaming gang before). 2) Web nerf, necessary, but sort of a band-aid fix. Stacking webs still have the same overall effect pre and post nerf, the target is essentially screwed. This happens alot in PVE vs. sleeper rats, I want to field something fast and blaster focused, but I can't b/c their 30km-40km webs stack making it impossible to catch anything. Just get rid of the ability to stack webs already. 3) Deimos, a.k.a. Diemost (for good reason), fix it already please. Brutix is better in almost every way except agility while being nearly 1/4th of the price. Increase the PG, slot layout, whatever...it really needs help. I'm not a big fan of being confined to a drone boat since my blaster boat is struggling.
alexia menchura	Posted - 2009.08.18 23:24:00 - [1029] 1) warp jamming is great for pirating, but should not be allowed in game or have restrictions placed on there ussage. Minmatar race ships 2-1 warp jamming strength to any other race. which means pending on ship a full lower rack of warpcore stabilizers? not good... especially with Hic's. 2) missile and gun penalty's makes it not worth while to even train high skills among other modules "EW"cap/tf/grid issues... 3) even thought this is a mmo game you also have to fine balance for the single player. I love warp lockers, but it should be limited to wars/stealers or a direct attack on follow player belonging to that corp/alliance(a purpose). apply's to low space and allows for some to escape until proven to be a threat. perhaps rules same as docking after firing on someone.
Shiynutuk	Posted - 2009.08.18 23:47:00 - [1030] I forgot to mention in previous changes I'd like to see... what good is the skill afterburner(Skill at using afterburners. 10% bonus to Afterburner duration per skill level) All attribute will still remain in effect thoughout whatever your duration. Whats the point of this skill and makes no sense to train it if attributes remain in effect thoughout entire say 14sec's duration time. With afterburners its 500% mass addition which all adds all mass addition modules at 500% increase. This should stop all attributes when disengaged for that duration period so you get that at Lv 4 14 sec's of none attributed addition. Super important

Desequenced Gallente The NightClub	Posted - 2009.08.19 18:46:00 - [1031] 1) Level 4 Mission rewards (Possible Solution?) 2) Large Projectiles 3) Even out the salvage tables across NPC types by usage (ie: Serpentis/Guristas salvage being [mostly] crap, versus BR/Sansha/Angels being much more valueable)
Jaradakar Amarr	Posted - 2009.08.20 02:16:00 - [1032] 1) Armor Vs Shield tanking (Way in favor of Shield tanking, specifically passive shield tanking -- Drake fitted right can passive tank 720+ dps!!! and still dish out 300+ dps!)
Mobius Fierce	Posted - 2009.08.22 07:40:00 - [1033] Edited by: Mobius Fierce on 22/08/2009 07:43:03 The attribute system. It only serve as a block against fun things. 1st there are the lame learning skills, which are purely a delay of fun. 2nd there are the point selections themselves. Even with remaps, they only reward people who plan out characters a year at a time, like character farmers. And it makes it inefficient for anyone to try a variety of things that are not in their highest attribute. 3rd the implant thing reduces incentives for PvP and rewards character farmers who can stay docked up out of harms way. Implants should provide something useful, like tracking speed, not "learning speed" which is only useful when playing like a carebear. Even with jump clones, real life plans change and you shouldn't be punished for not knowing perfectly when you can and can not play the game. Finally this game doesn't even need attributes. There is no game design point for them other than to reward character farmers. Everything affecting actual game play is in the non-learning skills. Just remove attributes entirely and pick a decent learning rate for everyone and be done with it. We should be here to play the game, not skill up characters most optimally by not playing them.
Istvaan Shogaatsu Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2009.08.22 13:42:00 - [1034] Have I mentioned yet, that the Legion is a terrible under-gunned sack of crap? I think I have. Suggestions: - 1 more turret/launcher. Legion's pathetic DPS puts it far behind the other T3s. - Drone bays on the missile launcher, and laser subsystems. Much better drone bay on the drone sub, which is currently a miserable joke. - More interesting bonuses. Proteus gets MWD cap use and scram range, Loki gets webs, Tengu gets ECM, Legion gets... nothing.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.08.25 11:55:00 - [1035] Indeed, the Legion does do the least amount of any of the T3 ships when using the cloaking offensive module. Needs to be fixed. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Gunship Amarr Destructive Influence	Posted - 2009.08.29 01:51:00 - [1036] Get rid of the doomsday, its not good for game play and is used now extensively in sov 4 systems as an easy way to get rid of romming gangs. Instead make it have massive staying power and upgraded firepower and tracking (so it can hit BS), make it feared when it arrives on the battlefield, but not an instant kill mashine. The motherships also needs to have far better staying power to justify there costs.
Gabriel Karade Gallente Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:29:00 - [1037] Is this thing still being read? How about fixing the tracking formula that hasn't been re-vamped since 2004; It's full of holes, 0 m bug, doesn't properly account for angular velocity (ship rotation), doesn't account for change of target size with distance, and is generally just... old -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Sgt Napalm SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.01 19:46:00 - [1038] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Is this thing still being read? No.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.02 04:27:00 - [1039] Originally by: CCP Nozh Hi, Balancing is an ongoing process; there will always room for improvement. First off, are you serious? Looking at "problems" according to how many alts post their pet peeve?? Mine are Caldari/missiles: Rockets; weakest and most despised weapon system in the game due to completely lame expl velocities and radius and range. Cannot be used against it's intended targets effectively, in short. This also screws Khanid ships. Giant sigs. Slowest ships. Lowest racial dps whether rails or missiles. Smallest ship drone bays, many with none at all. Miniscule grid, fitting mod mandatory on many/most ships in order to fit even the "proper sized" launchers. Nighthawk; designed before HAM's appeared and cannot fit them, cannot fit a gang mod +mwd +HML + non loltastic buffer. The other field commands CAN do all that and fit proper sized weapons. What's it's role exactly?? Field Command my hairy bum. Ever vanishing mid slots and rig slots (tank) for missile boats due to (now) the required Painter, Web, Rigor, Flare. Most effective Missile pvp has to happen at web range now due to your explosion velocity (and radius) across the board overnerf, even if it's a long range weapon. Their goes our vaunted range: loldps+flight time=meh. lolCruise anyone? Cruise is not a viable pvp weapon anymore. Add in Rockets and our shortest and longest range weapons blow chunks no matter what you do. Frig test I did highlights some of the problems: (All missile support Skills at 4 at the time) T1 Sabretooth vs Veangeance with no EM resists, Sabretooth default/fitted damage of 124 with my skills at the time. Target stationary: 115 damage Target MWD'ing (1750ms): 105 damage Target unmodded speed (317ms): 100 damage Target Afterburning (707ms): 61 damage Cald Navy Sabretooth vs Veangeance with no EM resists, Sabretooth default damage of 142 with my skills. Target stationary: 132 damage Target MWD'ing (1750ms): 120 damage Target unmodded speed (317ms): 113 damage Target Afterburning (707ms): 70 damage
Eledh Xenobytes Stain Empire	Posted - 2009.09.06 12:28:00 - [1040] Dear CCP, please, rebalance Blood faction ships. thx. ------------------------------------- [x_x]you asked we are happy? we are happy and protected!

Xentara Vispari	Posted - 2009.09.09 09:59:00 - [1041] 1. passive shield tank vs. active tanking - passive shield ships tank more dps and are invulnerable against cap drain/neut - the advantage using no cap should have a penalty compared to active tanking (passive tanks should be weaker than active) 2. The T1 market is totally screwed up. T1 items are dropping in masses from NPC ships, so new industry chars do hardly have any chances to make their living. Most T1 on the market has less value, than the ore needed to build them. Unnamed T1 items should not drop from NPCs. This would also decrease the profit from high sec mission runners and increase the profitablity of other forms of income. 3. Jamming is much stronger than other forms of e-war, because it completely disables the opponent. If a ship was successfully jammed, it should get a temporary invulnerability against further jamming. The skills/modules of the jammer and the opponent could determine the time frame of the invulnerability against jamming.
she1 Minmatar Anonymous Alcoholics Wrath.	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:42:00 - [1042] i took my loki into a wormhole since its a really good ship for wormholing right? So i take my subsystems along to be able to refit for dps, armor fit , remote shield repping and so on. But when i tried to refit at a pos i get the message subsystems cant be refitted in space. Doesnt make sense to me. Can CCP please take a look at this since it puts the lit on the whole modular idea.
ZigZag Joe Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.16 00:06:00 - [1043] Large Projectiles + Artillery Scrambler changes (and their effect on minnie/gallente) HP extender rigs balance (and purgers) Missiles (explosion velocity) Drones (missing drone interfacing 20%/lvl hp buff + 30% for kali) Black ops (jump range and bonuses) Minmatar split weapon ships (huginn needs grid, belicose needs anything and everything) WTB ENGINE TRAILS
Korvin Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:05:00 - [1044] Edited by: Korvin on 17/09/2009 11:05:32 1. T2 ammo need some love - it is mostly useless. 2. raptor is a most useless interceptor - it needs some speed, compared to all other races range ceptors. 3. interdictors - who is the best? why i know your answer before you answered?
Tamara Kit	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:31:00 - [1045] 1. Wormholes (Trammel, Anyone ?) 2. AF bonus missing, pointless (litterally Retribution) 3. T2 blaster ammo = dumb
Aionstar	Posted - 2009.09.18 09:20:00 - [1046] 1 active tanking 2 damp bonus on gallente EAS and Recons increase to 7,5%-10% 3 t2 ammo bonus/penalties balance 4 faction caldari/gallente hybrid ammo difference in damage type 5 return to gallente navy shop therm missiles
etgfrogs Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.20 21:48:00 - [1047] Edited by: etgfrogs on 20/09/2009 21:51:11 1: ECM - needs to be rebalanced since it almost garenteed no lock on a rook unless the ship is using 2 eccm, what i think it should be each ecm success hit drops max locked targets then reapplies it with a stack nerf, so each ecm can drop a ships max target locked anywhere from 0-8 anything past 3 gets significantly harder 2: Pulse lasers - i'd say battleships need a 10% reduction in tracking and cruisers a 5% reduction to bring it in comparison with the range they have 3: T2 close ammo - close range t2 ammo is next to never used because of the penalties and the fact faction ammo is next to equal damage FROG!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.22 16:30:00 - [1048] 1. CPU requirements of Shield Transporters. LST II and LRAR II on a Megathron: LRAR II: 7% of CPU, 3.4% of PG. LST II: 22.4% of CPU, 1.0% of PG. Why? The insane CPU requirements of LSTs effectively preclude the existence of shield RR BS gangs, reducing the diversity of Eve. 2. Roflkets. You know what the problem is. 3. Hawk. Fat, slow, horrible fitting problems, stupid Minmatar shield bonus, uses roflkets.
Zaiyo Modi Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.24 09:27:00 - [1049] Overpowered use of probes around stargates? Even though probing a ship take some time, I feel that a correction could easily be plausible, making probing for targets around stargates hard or impossible. This way, the factor of ship-positioning will be improved by allowing people to rely more on moving their ships around visibly or cloaked, without succumbing to a pvp paradigm where probing make the factor of ship-positioning pretty much a moot point. Just saying, that having people probing down ships sitting 100-200km off a stargate sort of makes ship-positioning and the combat based on this, deeply flawed.
Krrak	Posted - 2009.09.24 18:34:00 - [1050] 1. Deimos: I really like that ship, but it needs some kind of Boost. Slots or CPU/Grid, i don't know it. The Brutix is nearly as much powerful as the Diemos and only costs 25% of die Deimos. I don't want to fly Droneboats, i want to fly a Blaster oder Sniper Deimos. 2. Deimos. 3. T2 Ammo: Who use this kind of ammo in blasters? 4. Lvl4 Missions.

ugh zug	Posted - 2009.09.25 13:36:00 - [1051] Is it just me or did Gallente drone boats really under preform in the alliance tournament 7 along with the Gallente tech 3 ship? I was a bit dismayed to see the tengu kill 2 proteus without blinking an eye.
Marsaac Involuntary Confinement	Posted - 2009.09.25 15:12:00 - [1052] 1. The Loki, it gets 5 meds and 6 lows in most cases with immobility drivers. I do not see the point of this. One more mid and one less low is needed for it to be able to run 2 webs. Also it's close to impossible to get more then 500 dps out of it... Fun when the other t3 ships has over 700 2. Projectile artillery, a clip size of 10? Don't think i need to say anymore 3. The Tempest
Esk Esme Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.09.26 08:21:00 - [1053] Edited by: Esk Esme on 26/09/2009 08:21:42 1.high end moons they make way to much cash and 1nce a alalince has a monopaly on them it near imposible for any other smaller allaince to get a look in way to much isk earned imo from 1 moon about lvl 4's tbh i see nothing wrong with them they are for individual tast i see alot ppl cry over them mainly coz they bord blob warfare and see alot empire dweller's as easy prey if it wernt for that damn noob corp well tbh ppl should av the right to mission in safty if its empire 2 rails are pritty crap compard to other turrets close range t2 ammo isnt to good eaither EDIT: my spelling sux so sue me if your not a qulifyed english teacher dnt comment lol 3 0.0 regions tbh eve needs alot more them maybe 3-4 new NPC 0.0 regions the goldfish bowl has become way to small in past 2 years with alot more ppl joining game npc 0.0 is also a good way for new allainces to get they feet wet in 0.0
maximus sotar	Posted - 2009.09.27 04:06:00 - [1054] 1. AFK cloaking in a recon, that now has the power to hot drop unlimited black ops. AFK cloaking is a major *%^& up in eve and needs to be fixed... yes cloaking has its place but to give a recon the power to hot drop unlimited DPS in on anything is kinda unfair and makes recons + SB + black ops super overpowered. i suggest that a mass limit is imposed into the covet cyno, much like wormholes. This way a recon pilot is not a super major threat like it is now ... "recon" means according to the dictionary - An examination of a territory, or of an enemy's position, for the purpose of obtaining information necessary for directing military operations; a preparatory expedition. [1913 Webster]. Also cloaking needs a counter...cant see it cant kill it. and as it stands when u do see it... hes gonna hot drop 20 mates on ya. needs fixing.. 2. Astarte sucks.. needs some kinda of armor boost..its dps is good.. tank fails.. a battle cruiser tanks better. and half the time a BC can do close to the same dps. 3. Marauders, you just gave isk farmers a better way to farm. theses ships should not allowed in empire. ppl make more isk in empire than in 0.0. either fix 0.0, or tax empire ppl with 25% tax, and remove marauders/faction BS from empire, as to make it harder to isk farm. empire = 30mil-50mil/hour no risk. 0.0 = same maby little more, but its never safe 24/7. hostile fleets stop isk rolling in, AFK cloaker hot drop gangs, ect... and im sick and tired of a -0.97 true sec system spawning more cruiser spawns than low sec.. a mission runner see more BS than me. cruiser rats shouldn't exist in super low true sec systems.. 5x BS spawns should.
Esk Esme Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.09.27 10:31:00 - [1055] 3. Marauders, you just gave isk farmers a better way to farm. theses ships should not allowed in empire. ppl make more isk in empire than in 0.0. either fix 0.0, or tax empire ppl with 25% tax, and remove marauders/faction BS from empire, as to make it harder to isk farm. empire = 30mil-50mil/hour no risk. 0.0 = same maby little more, but its never safe 24/7. hostile fleets stop isk rolling in, AFK cloaker hot drop gangs, ect... and im sick and tired of a -0.97 true sec system spawning more cruiser spawns than low sec.. a mission runner see more BS than me. cruiser rats shouldn't exist in super low true sec systems.. 5x BS spawns should. lol stupidest idea iv seen tbh nobody forcing u to live/make isk in 0.0 you can choose were to live/isk make just coz u personaly dnt like it well just whine some more haha
maximus sotar	Posted - 2009.09.27 14:54:00 - [1056] Posted - 2009.09.27 10:31:00 - [1051] - Quote Report 3. Marauders, you just gave isk farmers a better way to farm. theses ships should not allowed in empire. ppl make more isk in empire than in 0.0. either fix 0.0, or tax empire ppl with 25% tax, and remove marauders/faction BS from empire, as to make it harder to isk farm. empire = 30mil-50mil/hour no risk. 0.0 = same maby little more, but its never safe 24/7. hostile fleets stop isk rolling in, AFK cloaker hot drop gangs, ect... and im sick and tired of a -0.97 true sec system spawning more cruiser spawns than low sec.. a mission runner see more BS than me. cruiser rats shouldn't exist in super low true sec systems.. 5x BS spawns should. lol stupidest idea iv seen tbh nobody forcing u to live/make isk in 0.0 you can choose were to live/isk make just coz u personaly dnt like it well just whine some more haha yes Mr mission runner.. you would hate to loose your faction fitted marauder wouldn't you. your little mission whoring ship that makes you millions. hence why the market in EVE is %^&$ed cause of #$%^ wits like you who would rather farm mission over and over rather than actually progressing your character into 0.0. marauders + faction BS just favor high sec mission *****s...CCP just made it easy for them to farm isk.
Phoenix T'ril Gallente Hashimoto Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.28 07:00:00 - [1057] There's a lot of hate on L4s. I run L4s because it's something myself and my friends can do in between classes and school, and still feel like we're getting somewhere in the game and accomplishing something. I don't have the time to invest in going out to 0.0 and dealing with pirates and gankers and all the rest of that nonsense. L4s are a good low-barrier-to-entry way for us to progress in the game, as they are for a lot of people. I'd take it as a kindness if you didn't completely torpedo that way for us casual folk to enjoy the game, much to the chagrin of all you hardcore players out there, I'm sure. Like it or not, Eve has casual players that just play sometimes, and 0.0 isn't very conducive to that sort of play. And before you say anything, I've spent eight months in 0.0 before, and I didn't really enjoy it as much as empire. I didn't have the time to invest in it, I still don't. I'm a carebear, sure, but carebears play Eve too. I can't stress that enough.
Gabriel Ironfist	Posted - 2009.09.28 14:09:00 - [1058] Since right on topic... Fix the power poor Vargur. So the minmitar can farm Missions too :)
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.28 18:17:00 - [1059] 1. Blasters need a boost. Either in damage or both optimal and falloff. After all, it's supposed to be a cross between Lasers and Projectiles, right? It should have a bit more of both optimal and falloff, without overpowering it in terms of damage dealing. But it should still be the best damage dealing turrets out there. 2. Torpedoes need a nerf. As it stands right now, if you take into account a torp Raven for example, it can outdamage even a Megathron (which is supposed to be the uber damage dealer, right? It's Gallente after all and they're supposed to be the uber damage dealers, not to mention the fact that missiles always hit...) and have a comparable buffer tank. 3. Drake needs a nerf. Its buffer tanking abilities far surpass any other Battlecruiser and it can easily just stay out of range while blaster any battlecruiser to bits with Heavy Assault Missiles. I know I'm mainly talking about 1v1/2 situations here, but the Drake seems to be a bit overpowered. Just my 2 cents!
Rogueweapon	Posted - 2009.09.29 01:01:00 - [1060] developers , can you plz give the only pure shield tanking race a base em resist for shield , at least 25% for the caldari. also id like to see the cerberus have more cpu and 150 more powergrid . in PVP the caldari have to fight the amarr as well as the minmatar so why on earth not give the specialist shield tanking race a leg up on shield technology . thanks torps and ravens and drakes dont need nerfing , as it stands now they are pretty weak compared to the othe races

Esk Esme Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.09.29 14:25:00 - [1061] Originally by: maximus sotar Posted - 2009.09.27 10:31:00 - [1051] - Quote Report 3. Marauders, you just gave isk farmers a better way to farm. theses ships should not allowed in empire. ppl make more isk in empire than in 0.0. either fix 0.0, or tax empire ppl with 25% tax, and remove marauders/faction BS from empire, as to make it harder to isk farm. empire = 30mil-50mil/hour no risk. 0.0 = same maby little more, but its never safe 24/7. hostile fleets stop isk rolling in, AFK cloaker hot drop gangs, ect... and im sick and tired of a -0.97 true sec system spawning more cruiser spawns than low sec.. a mission runner see more BS than me. cruiser rats shouldn't exist in super low true sec systems.. 5x BS spawns should. lol stupidest idea iv seen tbh nobody forcing u to live/make isk in 0.0 you can choose were to live/isk make just coz u personaly dnt like it well just whine some more haha yes Mr mission runner.. you would hate to loose your faction fitted marauder wouldn't you. your little mission whoring ship that makes you millions. hence why the market in EVE is %^&$ed cause of #$%^ wits like you who would rather farm mission over and over rather than actually progressing your character into 0.0. marauders + faction BS just favor high sec mission *****s...CCP just made it easy for them to farm isk. you are dumb this is a dictor prober toon my mission runner uses a CNR and Domi rr alt instaed crying about missions why not cry about how crap most 0.0 is i mean bc and cruser rats ffs wot the hell do ppl want to go there for to make cash lol i pay my sub i decide how i play wots the big deal if u dnt like 0.0 gtfo simple the problem isnt lvl 4's its 0.0 most 0.0 is crap useless space btw my pvp main does live in 0.0 but only for pvp i make cash in empire
maximus sotar	Posted - 2009.09.29 17:30:00 - [1062] Originally by: Esk Esme Originally by: maximus sotar Posted - 2009.09.27 10:31:00 - [1051] - Quote Report 3. Marauders, you just gave isk farmers a better way to farm. theses ships should not allowed in empire. ppl make more isk in empire than in 0.0. either fix 0.0, or tax empire ppl with 25% tax, and remove marauders/faction BS from empire, as to make it harder to isk farm. empire = 30mil-50mil/hour no risk. 0.0 = same maby little more, but its never safe 24/7. hostile fleets stop isk rolling in, AFK cloaker hot drop gangs, ect... and im sick and tired of a -0.97 true sec system spawning more cruiser spawns than low sec.. a mission runner see more BS than me. cruiser rats shouldn't exist in super low true sec systems.. 5x BS spawns should. lol stupidest idea iv seen tbh nobody forcing u to live/make isk in 0.0 you can choose were to live/isk make just coz u personaly dnt like it well just whine some more haha yes Mr mission runner.. you would hate to loose your faction fitted marauder wouldn't you. your little mission whoring ship that makes you millions. hence why the market in EVE is %^&$ed cause of #$%^ wits like you who would rather farm mission over and over rather than actually progressing your character into 0.0. marauders + faction BS just favor high sec mission ***s...CCP just made it easy for them to farm isk. you are dumb this is a dictor prober toon my mission runner uses a CNR and Domi rr alt instaed crying about missions why not cry about how crap most 0.0 is i mean bc and cruser rats ffs wot the hell do ppl want to go there for to make cash lol i pay my sub i decide how i play wots the big deal if u dnt like 0.0 gtfo simple the problem isnt lvl 4's its 0.0 most 0.0 is crap useless space btw my pvp main does live in 0.0 but only for pvp i make cash in empire LOL crying.... if i cant get my 700mil carrier into empire... why should a 1.2bil+ marauder be allowed? like i said you would hate to loose your faction fitted mission whoring ship. pirate mods + deepspace + officer mods should be be outlawed in empire, much like booster pills. why should a mod u find deep in 0.0 be allowed in empire? oh sorry i forgot.. for mission running homo's like yourself. empire should be a starting point for pilots with low income. not a place to * up missions and gather expensive mods. yes 0.0 is fu%^$# but so is empire. and u say im crying.. LOL. i can solo any lev 4 mission solo in a t1 domi, while being AFK. what does that tell u? missions are just a way to * isk with no tax no risk. CCP needs to make is so BS are only allowed into .6 systems. Its a %^&king BS, in RL u dont buy a tank to go for a drive in the city. meh... when will CCP learn. 0.0 if fuc#ed and empire is just an easy ride for isk ***s.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.09.30 08:08:00 - [1063] IMHO remove isk for missions in empire give only lp but increase it, also decrease npc-s drop/bounty. And give agents to 0.0 stations even to those not in npc region. Increase 0.0 bounties, and make a new asteroid type which gives mainly trit worth near as much /cycle as other high end roids.
Bomberlocks Minmatar Icarus Prime	Posted - 2009.10.01 01:38:00 - [1064] 1.Current and proposed projectiles weapons. Currently underpowered, proposed niche weapon that will only serve to drive even more people away from Minnie BSs since they won't even be good in PvE anymore. 2.CCP itself: needs to take a serious look at how they approach balancing. Currently it feels as if they themselves do not do much in the way of QA, even though CCP has many testing centers in numerous countries. It also feels as if any proposed changes have to go through CCP's marketing department to be vetted for the patch's ability to string the user base along even further into parting with more cash. 3.UI clusterfsck: There have been few games with UI clutter as bad as Eve's. Seriously, employ a few usability designers and testers and fix it finally.
Degara Farat Caldari House Maadiah	Posted - 2009.10.01 18:01:00 - [1065] Remove basic T1 mods from the loot tables Arty AF 4th bonus
Nathanael Ashcroft TAKAGI Corp	Posted - 2009.10.03 15:55:00 - [1066] 1> Blasters : give them the tracking they deserve ! 2> HS lvl4 mission : Must stay WAY better than the lvl3 and should stay attractive. But the rewards (especially bounties) should be lowered. 3> T2 short range ammo : give a tracking bonus and lower the pure damages. --- KB\|RP
Mamba Lev The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.05 21:18:00 - [1067] Edited by: Mamba Lev on 05/10/2009 21:19:02 Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Needs a better bonus to it's grid, enough so that you can fit 2 Large Shield extenders to it withought having to add grid mods and rigs. The 6 blaster version does this easily even with Heavy Neutron II's. The HAM version which i understand to be the missile version of blasters can't even fit 1 and that's before the MWD so you need to fit atleast 2 Grid mods/rigs to fit 1 LSE and the mwd. I hope someone from CCP reads this as it's really doing my head in :)
Klandi Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.10.07 23:26:00 - [1068] 1. Balancing. The concept of a balance means there is inconsistancies and previous considered concepts in theory were not held to be correct in practice. But this is how human nature is, so the act of balance is a foreign concept in nature and I would love Eve to mirror nature. Example: the human is top of the foodchain - but a lion can still hunt and kill him, unless the human has protection. If an act of 'balance' was enforced, the lion would be stripped of claws and teeth (cos that could injure the human) and the human would be bound hand and foot cos he could do damage to the lion. Ludicrious example maybe, but it does explain my point and it also reflects the frustration that Eve is like this. I would love to get rid of balancing - reflect life as we have it today, with humans screwing things up, and using exploration and inventiveness to gain an advantage. Just my thoughts
Shadi Dee	Posted - 2009.10.09 12:04:00 - [1069] While I am sure has been noted before, there is something wrong with how "Adaptive nano plating" mods are balanced against "Energized adaptive membrane" mods. Energized adaptive membrane t2 => 20% to all Adaptive nano plating t2 => 15.36% to all Energized adaptive membrane best named => 15% to all Adaptive nano plating best named => 15.36% to all Intended or not, truth is, a best named plating is better than its energized membrane counterpart ... and I can't find the logic behind it.
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2009.10.10 20:59:00 - [1070] T1 Production - This should be a fantastic way for newer players to get into industry and right now it's dominated by mission runners dumping all the loot form missions. More Modules! - Not just extensions of current ones but brand new ones, to further improve the depth of the game. Improving Low sec - Making low sec a more desirable place to call your home. Right now it is nearly as dangerous as 0.0 but does not have anywhere near the rewards. It's also painfully annoying to fight in low sec due to constantly dealing with agression timers and the global criminal timer. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."

Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.10.11 10:18:00 - [1071] 1. Fix undetectable cloakers who sit in cloak with a simple ship and make cynoships or increase cyno generator PG and CPU fitting needs (banish cynogenetrator from frigs) 2. Exploiters/trickers > Logoffsky/cloak+mwd/ninjalooters/wardec dodgers etc. 3. Revised aggro and redock politics. No more redock after 45 sec with 15 minute aggro time.
Felex Di Warhamsters Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.10.12 11:20:00 - [1072] 1. local in 0.0 - like ally chat 2. anti missels protections (like track dis, As the universal module) - coz defender dont work and are established only on the rocket ships that is already absurd 3. agrotimer in 0.0 at gate - coz its make solo pvp impossible, What for it here is necessary?
CientificaLoca	Posted - 2009.10.12 19:57:00 - [1073] Edited by: CientificaLoca on 12/10/2009 20:01:57 1) Love a little the minners. 2) Medium or slow item to enable repair slowwing the drones on drone bay. 3) Something to can make random miners party and cant steal the resources. 4) My love for a drone ship. A ship with 10 drones that cant use weapon , only drones. 5) Upper item increase DMG drones.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.13 07:52:00 - [1074] 1. (Because I'm biased I start like this lol) Minmatar need to return to the ideal of speed and luck: all matari ships should be moderately faster and more agile then their racial counterparts and keep the half-assed tanking slots we love so much. I am not talking about a return to pre speed-nerf stats, only a moderate increase in speed and agility to all matari ships so they are best in class in those attributes only. 2. Insurance still seems hacked together - - unfinished. Insurance should be balanced to reward a good record, and it should be more automatic, bi-monthly, with a low continuous fee. Insurance should take into account factions involved in ship destruction, and the pilot's pvp lost/kill record to balance reward on loss. Unless a viable way to calculate fitting costs arises, fittings and modules should still not be included in insurance coverage. All new pilots should have a clean slate and reasonable fee per ship, with room for improvement as faction standings change. Those are the issues that come to mind which are important to me, besides the welcome attention toward projectile ammo, etc, which have already been reviewed and discussed for the upcoming patch.
CommunistMan	Posted - 2009.10.14 19:51:00 - [1075] 1. Make ships faster, speed nerf sucked :( 2. Armor buffer tanks are getting annoying 3. Ships that are meant to go fast are going too slow to fill their roles (interceptors and stuff)
IIIAsharakIII BlackListed Inc.	Posted - 2009.10.15 20:41:00 - [1076] Before I put in my top 3, I'd like to just put something out there. Most of the "complaints" I've read in this thread are a direct result of previous "complainers". Don't like chance based ECM? Well, it wasn't before, until someone "complained". Don't like missiles? Well, those were different before too. ETC, ETC, ETC. Balancing has caused more trouble for this game than it is worth. Errors in calculations is one thing. Game design is another. Constant nerfing/buffing of the races causes players to "chase" the currently popular race, ships, and fittings. Which leads me directly to my 3 top things I'd like to see changed in eve: 1. More specialization for each race. Each one should have a unique weakness, as well as a unique strongpoint. 2. Lets revisit drones, modules, and fittings. I'm not sure if its possible to redesign modules, drones, and ships to accomodate more diverse fittings, but it'd be great if you could figure a way to do it. 3. Increase 0.0 incentives, without nerfing other professions. Not every lvl4 mission runner has 3 accounts. Most eve players make far less than anything reported in the various guides you see around the forums.
Selvacin	Posted - 2009.10.17 00:49:00 - [1077] Edited by: Selvacin on 17/10/2009 00:50:27 Edited by: Selvacin on 17/10/2009 00:49:42 Originally by: Xahara 1. Blasters need a boost. Either in damage or both optimal and falloff. After all, it's supposed to be a cross between Lasers and Projectiles, right? It should have a bit more of both optimal and falloff, without overpowering it in terms of damage dealing. But it should still be the best damage dealing turrets out there. 2. Torpedoes need a nerf. As it stands right now, if you take into account a torp Raven for example, it can outdamage even a Megathron (which is supposed to be the uber damage dealer, right? It's Gallente after all and they're supposed to be the uber damage dealers, not to mention the fact that missiles always hit...) and have a comparable buffer tank. 3. Drake needs a nerf. Its buffer tanking abilities far surpass any other Battlecruiser and it can easily just stay out of range while blaster any battlecruiser to bits with Heavy Assault Missiles. I know I'm mainly talking about 1v1/2 situations here, but the Drake seems to be a bit overpowered. Just my 2 cents! 1. don't know enough about blasters to judge. 2. try moving torps have crap explosion velocity even a little movement can limit thier dps and if a raven is gank setup you should have no problems killing it, try using BC's lol, or hac's 3. drakes are SLOW as hell, i can catch up to one in a mealstrom with 8650's and emp ammo i will end it as well.
Marinochka11111	Posted - 2009.10.19 11:19:00 - [1078] 1600MM plates on cruiser platforms. Cut powergrid a little on some cruisers (rupture, thorax, vexor, arbitrator, maller) to make it ipossible to fit a 1600mm plate. Currently a cruiser can have 50+k effective hitpoints, maller can get over 90k effective hitpoints with 2 x 1600mm plates. Its just not right when most battleships have slightly over 100k ehp. 1600 plates must be available to bc's (one MAX, not 2 or 3) and bs'es, not to a cruiser.
Onin Ra Absinthe Brothers Consortium	Posted - 2009.10.19 11:32:00 - [1079] Originally by: Marinochka11111 1600MM plates on cruiser platforms. Cut powergrid a little on some cruisers (rupture, thorax, vexor, arbitrator, maller) to make it ipossible to fit a 1600mm plate. Currently a cruiser can have 50+k effective hitpoints, maller can get over 90k effective hitpoints with 2 x 1600mm plates. Its just not right when most battleships have slightly over 100k ehp. 1600 plates must be available to bc's (one MAX, not 2 or 3) and bs'es, not to a cruiser. I agree with this alt. With the introduction of rigs, and now with them being so cheap, every ***** can afford them, and we got mallers with 100k ehp running around and thats without implants, most of other cruisers can have around 50k ehp + after web nerf and sig raidus fix they are very hard to hit with BS sized guns. Im not saying it is suposed to be easy to hit them with BS guns, but jee weez, 50k EHP AND small sig + nerfed webs? This 1600mm plating hp fest on cruiser has got to stop. Killing a cruiser takes so long now and it encourages blobing, by the time you kill a cruiser TEH BLOB is already here. Pretty much same ** with BCs. --- First pvp expirience in eve is alot like having first sex, you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, but it is exciting and one way or another its over way too fast.
Onin Ra Absinthe Brothers Consortium	Posted - 2009.10.19 11:46:00 - [1080] Originally by: Roland Thorne Edited by: Roland Thorne on 13/10/2009 08:45:50 2. Insurance still seems hacked together - - unfinished. Insurance should be balanced to reward a good record, and it should be more automatic, bi-monthly, with a low continuous fee. Insurance should take into account factions involved in ship destruction, and the pilot's pvp lost/kill record to balance reward on loss. Unless a viable way to calculate fitting costs arises, fittings and modules should still not be included in insurance coverage. All new pilots should have a clean slate and reasonable fee per ship, with room for improvement as faction standings change. While i do find this idea very interesting and cool on PAPER, in eve it will just encourage even more people to blob. Losing ships in blobs is much harder than in solo/small gang warfare. I do understand that blobs etc is the part of the game, but i think we have eoungh big fleet warfare around as it is already. --- First pvp expirience in eve is alot like having first sex, you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, but it is exciting and one way or another its over way too fast.

Kaya Divine Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.10.19 20:17:00 - [1081] Overhaul of insurance: Those who have -0.1 (not mitigated) shouldn't be able to insure ships. This would implement a good ISK drain, and indirectly give usefulness for having sec status which is above 0.0 Ninja salvaging fix: Currently it could be more profitable then running lvl4s mission. My proposal, just remove salvage from high security, which would move some people to low security, not only some mission runners but also and ninja salvagers. Shoot your shot...
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.10.20 11:41:00 - [1082] * blasters cant track properly in their optimal
Battlingbean Heaven's Gate	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:13:00 - [1083] I. Passive Tanking and Shield vs. Armor - I can shield tank and armor tank, but at this point I'd armor tank everything if I could. Passive tanking is not effective atm because fights don't last long enough for it to be effective(Drake is the exception of course). All ships of the same class have the same shield recharge time, that seems wrong, shouldn't Caldari and some Minmatar be naturally faster? II. T2 ammo - Simply not worth using. III. Certain weapon systems - Rockets, artillery(so I hear), railguns etc. If possible please don't nerf anything just buff others. Nerf doesn't exist in RL and will probably just cause whining.
Onin Ra Absinthe Brothers Consortium	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:54:00 - [1084] I really liked the idea i read in the other topic about removing tiers or making just 2 tiers for frigs and cruiser and makinng all these ships viable. In all my time in eve i had never had the need to fly a Condor or Heron for example, same with other races, these ships, you know what ships im talking about, are UTTERLY AND TOTALY USELESS. Sure a newbie here and there fly's it, but 95% of the time nobody even thinks of them viable. Alot of cruiser are never getting used at all. Instead of adding new ships every time, how about making other ships that are already in game USEFULL. Tier system works fairly well with BS's for example, probably for the reason that there are only 3 tiers. Adding few slots here and there, some different bonuses and we will have much more diverese t1 enviroment. You keep adding t2, event t3 ships, but we still have Condors that nobody ever uses. --- First pvp expirience in eve is alot like having first sex, you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, but it is exciting and one way or another its over way too fast.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.10.23 05:55:00 - [1085] Last time I posted about rockets, my post was repeatedly deleted by moderators... let's see what happens now. Module: Rockets (torpedoes seems to be okay, HAM's have issues, but I unsure about possible fixes) Issue: They're sucks, comparing... to anything. Okay, I know (well, I really know) - it is absolutely separate weapon classes, but some parallels exists. At least light missiles are closer counterpart, than, say, drones or guns. So, keeping it in mind: Issue #1: Reload time affecting rockets DPS insanely. Namely by 10%. I've had feeling that all what i'm doing flying my Vengeance, is waiting for rocket launchers to reload... then I've placed numbers on paper... and saw it was not only feeling. Suggested fix: Increase launcher capacity. (Double it at least) Issue #2: Single rocket doing close to no damage, they're fired very often, resulting in Issue #1 plus huge load to EVE cluster. Suggestion: Increase duration, damage in half. Issue #3: Rockets are slow. Really... Not a counter to interceptors. Not even close to. I suggest increase in speed. From half to twice increase. Who want to play with numbers: Screenshot and OOo calc document ADD: Considering all these changes, Suggested addition: Increase rocket launchers fitting cost a bit. More precisely, increase PG usage slightly (keep in mind to increase available PG on some ships as well, if that hurts them, namely Kestrel has so weak powergrid, depends on increase, it may never be able to fit rockets on it any more) -- Thanks CCP for cu
Ahalya	Posted - 2009.10.23 17:44:00 - [1086] Overhaul of insurance: ----------------------- Those who have -0.1 (not mitigated) shouldn't be able to insure ships. This would implement a good ISK drain, and indirectly give usefulness for having sec status which is above 0.0 Ninja salvaging fix: ---------------------- Currently it could be more profitable then running lvl4s mission. My proposal, just remove salvage from high security, which would move some people to low security, not only some mission runners but also and ninja salvagers. TWO EXCELLENT IDEAS - get these in!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I just want to second Kaya Divine's post!! In fact it's the 2 best suggestions I can find in this whole forum!!
Larinioides cornutus	Posted - 2009.10.24 11:18:00 - [1087] Edited by: Larinioides cornutus on 24/10/2009 11:18:29 Overhaul of insurance: ----------------------- Those who have -0.1 (not mitigated) shouldn't be able to insure ships. This would implement a good ISK drain, and indirectly give usefulness for having sec status which is above 0.0 Ninja salvaging fix: ---------------------- Currently it could be more profitable then running lvl4s mission. My proposal, just remove salvage from high security, which would move some people to low security, not only some mission runners but also and ninja salvagers. TWO EXCELLENT IDEAS - get these in!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I just want to second Kaya Divine's post!! In fact it's the 2 best suggestions I can find in this whole forum!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I second his opinion.
Mayweather Edstonbery	Posted - 2009.10.26 03:19:00 - [1088] Bumping this for great justice so that Nozh knows that some of us remember when he completely abandons a thread / idea and pretends it never happened.
WuChiJIanRen	Posted - 2009.10.27 23:02:00 - [1089] 1.ECM and ECM drones:They are balanced and do not need to be changed. 2.Ninja Salvage: It's also balanced and fair,do not need to be changed,too. 3.Boost the Usage of some sleep ships
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.10.28 03:10:00 - [1090] deimos. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"

Ahalya	Posted - 2009.10.29 12:19:00 - [1091] The fact is, for one example, ninja salvage is very unfair, especially for solo players. There needs to be more balance for the solo player, especially in hi-sec, where they should be protected. Another simple idea, make cargo scanning illegal in hi-sec. If someone scan you they are doing something wrong!
Yolkree Kinkou. Stella Polaris.	Posted - 2009.10.30 12:28:00 - [1092] Edited by: Yolkree on 30/10/2009 12:29:03 Eris\other interdictors - no balance Really not enough cpu for missiles+hybrid turret platform. Also, 2 med\4 low slots for dictor ? links about it: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=981263 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=953402 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184576
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.10.30 16:32:00 - [1093] Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 30/10/2009 16:33:14 Wow, bunch of carebear whiners here! More about ninja looting. I feel its beneath me and I've never done it, but oh well, that's the game. If you want WoW with 'corpses' that only you can loot and No Drop items then go to wow. If you want a thrilling game with thieves and real danger in getting wiped out, play this game. No insurance for those under -.1? Wtf? I've pirated only a handful of times, but you obviously want to remove the pirate element from this game. Why many I ask? Because you lost things to a pirate? Some high sec ganking happening? Just like above, this game is as fun as it is BECAUSE you can be killed anywhere (and with little, if any, consequences most anywhere). Hell, the real reason you two whiners are ***ing soo much is because you lost ISK. Your deaths have cost you ingame money. Sad thing is, its the very risky nature of this game, the do or die (cobra kie!) nature of EVE that creates such a demand of the ISKies. You remove the risk, you kill peoples ability to prey on you sheep, and a bit of the power of ISK evaporates. So before you s start railing against those neferarious types, think for a second whether they contribute anything* to the ambiance of the game you play. ----------------- Friends Forever
Dale Konstantine	Posted - 2009.10.31 19:38:00 - [1094] 1. Blasters: Improved tracking and maybe a bit more optimal would help, damage may need to be slightly decreased in compensation. 2. EW drones: The non ecm types need some help to bring them up to par with ecm drones. Allowing character ewar skills to factor in for drone ewar bonuses would help here as well, even if some EW drones need to be weakened to compensate. 3. Tech 2 ammo: Hybrid ammo Void: remove the tracking penalty, add a large penalty to the weapon signature and increase damage, so it is not so effective against smaller targets yet hurts larger targets. Null: remove the tracking penalty, slightly increase weapon signature Spike: dont fix what is not broken Javlin: remove the tracking penalty, add a tracking bonus and increase the range penalty.
Ahalya	Posted - 2009.11.01 11:31:00 - [1095] What needs balance? 1. High sec Solo pilot methods to get away/defensive options from unwanted battles and ganks!! 2. Ninja Salvage (obviously). 3. Level 4 mission rewards - Drop slightly and give to level 3!!
RedSplat Noir.	Posted - 2009.11.02 23:39:00 - [1096] Originally by: Ahalya What needs balance? 1. High sec Solo pilot methods to get away/defensive options from unwanted battles and ganks!! 2. Ninja Salvage (obviously). 3. Level 4 mission rewards - Drop slightly and give to level 3!! Troll? Anyway, that aside... The racial balance is still seriously out of whack. Increase laser cap use considerable, reduce scorch range bonus and tracking. Then nerf Armor plate, LSE and Trimark/CDFE HP bonus' Increase base racial special resists on T1 and T2 ships. Oh and increase medium/large blaster tracking, then re-assess you 'Minmatar Buff' as its misguided and entirely misses an important point. 1 KM FALLOFF IS NOT ThH EQUAL IN UTILITY OF 1 KM OF OPTIMAL /END RANT Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Tylara duChelm	Posted - 2009.11.03 13:26:00 - [1097] "high cost" should not directly mean "high utility" There is no need to buff something "expensive" just because it is expensive. 4 guns with 125% damage bonus is better than 8 guns with a 25% damage bonus, if only because you can then equip 3 utility high items (Nos, etc.) This means the Nightmare and now the Bhaalgorn will still be the favored pirate ships. Is there an actual reasonable explanation why pirates have the best gear in the game? The dominion pirate battleships are better than their t1 or t2 "empire" counterparts, even the navy versions. Most of the cruisers are better than the HACs of either of the constituant races. Likewise the frigs are near as good (If not outright better) than the assault frigates. Why do the pirates have better tech than the civilized empire factions?
Traska Gannel	Posted - 2009.11.03 17:10:00 - [1098] 1) Revamp of T2 ammo 2) Comment on L4 missions ... - there are players who use level 4 missions to fund other activities like PVP - these folks complain that the risk/reward for L4s is too low - there are also a very large number of players who run L4 missions since they find them to be fun and like solo challenges without the likelihood of another player disrupting the fun - this is the classic "carebear". These players do not want to play in losec ... they make ISK to fund the purchase of expensive ships and faction mods that they use to run missions faster or more efficiently. For this group, the highest priority would be new missions, a wider variety with interesting themes and some challenges, including variations on a static theme so that the mission isn't completely predictable. Enjoyable PVE content with limited PVP risk, decent rewards and variety are probably the highest priority for this group. Higher rewards might tempt some of these out of high sec into losec or 0.0. Moving L4s to losec would probably drive most of these folks out of the game. - finally, you can make significantly more ISK trading or manufacturing with even less risk than missions ... so the risk/reward for missions can't be the primary motivation for the calls to modify L4s 3) Tweaks to combat mechanics ... remote repping should activate the in-combat timer so that the remote-repper can dock or jump until one minute after the last rep cycle completed. If the remote repper gains an aggression countdown then they also need to gain an in-combat coutdown before docking is permitted.
1amont cranston	Posted - 2009.11.04 00:03:00 - [1099] 1 : Tengu can tank to much dps and still match other T3's with dps 2: Ninja salvaging and looters salvaging wreaks should get flaged as there salvaging my wreaks be for i can get into my salvaging ship 3: Skill points Tanking so long to Get SP
DaHeaVYFo Rage of Inferno Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.05 02:36:00 - [1100] Increase blaster tracking AND damage. Blasters are super close range and have the highest risk to get in to optimal range (especially after nano nerf) so they should have the highest possible reward.

Drake Aura Legion.. The Council.	Posted - 2009.11.05 08:40:00 - [1101] 1. Cap ship jump range Black OPS need to be the same range as dreads etc JFs should have the range of carriers so that JFs are utilised more for logistics than carriers, the way it should be. Especially as a JF costs more and is a sitting duck away from a station. 2. 0.0 truesec status of a lot of systems is stupid, some have the same ores as highsec. Why would a miner bother going there when most of 0.0 is just a more dangerous area with same profits as empire??? 3. Maybe allow more than 2 JB's into one system so that the JB networks can be simpler and more straightforward!! :)
Svartak Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.11.06 14:35:00 - [1102] Edited by: Svartak on 06/11/2009 14:38:25 1. More hi-risk/high-reward balance for a solo-miner. Because of his role in the universe right now (s)he has no real possibility to arm her/his mining boat. It takes 2-3 good shots to get blown up = no chance to run. Therefore (s)he has to stay in hi-sec. Give minerboats in addition to the mining bonus some sort of evasion bonus (eg vaster warp, 99% shield resistance, built in ecm)so that the lure to go to lo-sec would be greater. 2. Give caldari more gun-oriented boats. Right now they are more or less forced to go the missile way. 3. Implants. Reduce the slotnumbers and replace slot 1-5 with permanent skills. That would reduce the big sting for pilots that are still accumulating SP that get podded in lo-sec. It would entice more people that are not in a very large corporation to leave hi-sec earlier because it would balance the RISK/reward for players with low SP and expense implants. Alternatively: make it very very hard to destroy pods. In the end we do eveything for one person called "me".
Tom Peeping	Posted - 2009.11.06 18:40:00 - [1103] 1. Any activity which causes one to go red... i.e. aggression (including remote repping) should result in a timer that does not allow docking 2. Fix all the ships that have only 1 mid slot.... (seriously... 2 mids is sooooo mandatory) 3. Battlecruisers are simply to effective for their price/insurance/dps/tank in comparison to t2 ships. I love em, and fly em all the time.. but I have to admit they are overpowered. Anyone who does small gang roams and worries about killboard efficiency, knows not to fly command ships or hacs when you get such similar results at so much less risk/cost. (in some cases... better dps than racial command ships too...) 4. ECM drones don't actually seem to overpowered to me. If we have to have something that turns most ships off at all.... I'd far rather see a missile specific defense that actually works... flares or something. 5. Salvage... I could give a flying flip about this... but I'm getting sick of seeing constant whine threads demanding fairness. Just give em aggro when we salvage like they keep asking. Yes, I know they'll start dieing in even greater hordes, but sheesh, if they want "consistency" so bad, just give it to them. 6. It'd be really nice to make it so that active tanks were worth fitting again.... Of note, that would have a significant effect on item number 3.
ashe peake	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:59:00 - [1104] Edited by: ashe peake on 07/11/2009 17:06:29 To be balanced? Ninja looters in HiSec for sure. I completely not agree with who says that the ninja looters improve the ambience of this game. Since if this would be true, I would have the possibility to defend my wrecks. But that's not true: the ninja looter steals my salvage and I can't shoot him because I'm in HiSec... Is this a joke? Who is illegal? Him or me? And how it work in RL? I can defend my properties in RL. Or police defends me. What's wrong in that? OK. Give the possibility to ninja looter to make his fckn job, but give me the possibility to defend my wrecks from him without Concord shoots me as if I'm the one doing something illegal... Also because, frankly, a lot of ninja looters work for ISK sellers companies, which are illegal. This is a notorius question: do not tell fairy tales about, discussing about ambience and other bullshi**. I use to play in EVE, not to work. So this must be fixed ASAP IMO.
Tale Chaser	Posted - 2009.11.08 07:54:00 - [1105] 1. armor vs shield tanks--shield tanekrs use reppers of different/large ship classes. armor tankers can. the end result, is exemplified by tengu/proteus comparisons (6500 dps perma running tengu tank, bus 1300 dps proteus tank). 2. mining, as a profession, and as a source of income is pathetic. 40% of some mins, 60% of others, dont come from mining. as close to 100% of mins produced, should be from mining. 3. tech 2 ship invention. sucks. much. it is fail.
Wenisicia Corrino	Posted - 2009.11.10 03:40:00 - [1106] Edited by: Wenisicia Corrino on 10/11/2009 03:41:45 Stop nerfing the game in favor of PvP. An option to stop ninja salvagers. Tech II ships should be insurable foe their full purchase price, not the price of the Tech I hull.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2009.11.10 06:51:00 - [1107] I. Moon rebalancing. Fountain, Delve and Esoteria have too many high-end moons. Despite the upcoming nerf those regions will still remain excessively rich due to currently mid quality moon distribution. II. Blasters need a boost, as nobody uses them thanks to every other gun out-ranging them. III. LVL 4's need a nerf.
Goloith	Posted - 2009.11.11 03:45:00 - [1108] 1.) Please provide a better Drone UI and commands. Also maybe let the pilot warp to only "his/her" sentry drones?....might make Ishtars actually roaming snipers comparable to that of the Zealot. 2.) Please buff Blaster boats! They get pawned before they can even do any damage! Idk maybe give them a "Blink" ability at the cost of capacitor or shuts off MWD temporary after "Blinking" to the target. (can't increase their speed cause thats Minmatar's role.) 3.) Make 0.0 minerals more lucrative? Maybe buff up Mercoxit/Morphite prices since it's found in the lowest of 0.0 systems. Also please find a better way to remove isk farmers from the game!!!
Kublai Khaan Gallente Bulgarian Mafia Squad	Posted - 2009.11.14 17:37:00 - [1109] 1.Drones - management, interface, implants , rigs, etc.More drone love. 2.Suicide ganking in high sec. 3.Drones.
Kaurapa	Posted - 2009.11.17 14:55:00 - [1110] The risk vs return ratio in eve is skewed heavily in favour of high sec l4 mission runners. Removing Ninja Salvaging would skew this balance further. Note: Wrecks are not property. Any RL comparison with property rights is flawed. Ninja Salvaging is a highly skilled operation. It is also reasonably easy to avoid being "Ninja'd" Projectile Turrets and Minmatar Battleships in general are still going to ******ily weak compared to Amarr after Dominion release if sisi is to be believed.

Chabalym	Posted - 2009.11.18 15:46:00 - [1111] 1. boost ewar for other races or nurf ecm a bit 2. boost gal recon ships 3. flag ninja salvages or have a opinion to make the wreck free for them to take if you dont want it
roq deelim	Posted - 2009.11.18 18:02:00 - [1112] -rebalance blasters (especialy range) so they can concurent i.e. with pulse lasers - on blasters using different ammo types has nearly no range effect, but huge dmg influence..especialy the deimos and hyperion as blaster platforms need some revamp.. -make sensor dampeners effective again..even on specialized recon ships you need 2-3 sensor damps on a single target to have an noticable effect... -make active tanking an option again; atm active armor tank is only usable for mission running. shild tankers have option for passive tnak and can fit larger reppers than the shipclass is suited for.. -fix t2 ammo. atm using faction ammos is the way to go. remove all nerfs from t2 ammo or at least reduce it. -more ships with option to use heavy assault missiles and slightly a bit more range for heavy assault missiles(+10-20%). -reduce build times on rigs by half - before last eve extension bulding a rig took about 5-8 minutes, now even smal rigs need about 20 minutes..mediums 40 minutes and large 1hour..ridiculous.
Shana Matika	Posted - 2009.11.20 10:30:00 - [1113] Originally by: Larinioides cornutus Edited by: Larinioides cornutus on 24/10/2009 11:18:29 Overhaul of insurance: ----------------------- Those who have -0.1 (not mitigated) shouldn't be able to insure ships. This would implement a good ISK drain, and indirectly give usefulness for having sec status which is above 0.0 Ninja salvaging fix: ---------------------- Currently it could be more profitable then running lvl4s mission. My proposal, just remove salvage from high security, which would move some people to low security, not only some mission runners but also and ninja salvagers. TWO EXCELLENT IDEAS - get these in!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I just want to second Kaya Divine's post!! In fact it's the 2 best suggestions I can find in this whole forum!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I second his opinion. Excellent idea. Make negative sec status mean something instead of some red paint in the overview. They decided to stay outside the society, now let them feel what this mean. Maybe not that harsh. The lower the sec status the less they get from insurance. lowering by 10% every 1 steps. So a -10 will get nothing but a -0.01 to -0.99 90%... The ninja salvage is no problem...just shoot your wrecks when a ninja shows up. A soon as everyone do this the problem will be gone. Maybe add an option to destruct your wrecks by rightclick.
Bomberlocks Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 01:44:00 - [1114] The problem with CCP and balance is that CCP wouldn't recognise balance if it walked up to them and slapped them in the face. With that in mind, the top three things that are unbalanced in Eve are: 1.Do you at CCP actually fly all the races, or just your current flavour of the month? 2.What did you actually make all the useless T1 frigates and cruisers for? 3.CCP's idea of exiting missions and epic fail arcs is about as interesting as watching the clouds go by. You want a really interesting game that had terrible 2D graphics but with a real story? The Frozen Heart plug-in for that old Escape Velocity game and.. 4.Drones. Why are all the ewar drones bar ECM stacking nerfed? Is that balance? Ha Ha.
Apocalypse Doom Amarr Federation of Xenotech Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.22 13:32:00 - [1115] 1] LVL 4's --- dont nerf them, instead increase the bonuses of being in 0.0 (even in NPC 0.0, where anyone can go) I mean, its actually getting ******ed out there. I've had 11 Dread Guristas spawns in about a month or so, and only one dropped a module. (which was crap anyway) --- I've even had officers that havent dropped. ITS SO ANNOYING. 2] Make mining more profitable. I'm not a miner, but i do know mining takes hours for not much profit, especially ice harvesting modules. (this applies to high sec anyway) 3] Fix large projectiles, and T2 ammo, and give us navy battlecruisers! Dont nerf empire suicide ganking because its the only thing that keeps empire carebears on their toes, and give the amarr BC's some love (cause they're crap)
Pellit1 Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks	Posted - 2009.11.23 01:45:00 - [1116] Edited by: Pellit1 on 23/11/2009 01:51:26 Originally by: Tom Peeping 1. Any activity which causes one to go red... i.e. aggression (including remote repping) should result in a timer that does not allow docking Erm... this is already implemented. (And in my opinion the act of remote repping/boosting being counted as an act of AGGRESSION... n. 1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion. 2. The practice or habit of launching attacks. 3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions. ...Is laughable and should be removed IMO). ----------------------------- Anyway, I have the following: 1. Projectiles. Their DPS is far less than other races and in terms of artillery the alpha strike is abysmal. Please, please, please, please fix them! 2. The drone UI could do with a revamp - it's damn difficult to manage as is at the moment and for Gallente pilots, that's (in a few cases) their main source of damage. 3. T2 ammo (especially the high-damage, low-range) has been superceeded by faction ammunition, it needs fixing. (And as a side note - the Minmatar capitals are laughable compared to their respective counterparts... show the 'Tar a 'lil love ) ------------- Rough Necks Alliance BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
Markus Reese Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries	Posted - 2009.11.25 05:23:00 - [1117] Balance to the overfought ninja salvage: Ninja salvage isn't the problem. Should be promoted in fact in a way, but needs to be made a profession: Solution, salvage barges. On non barge ships, salvagers can only get small wrecks. 2 T1 barges. One low skill, one higher skill with more high slots. Get tractor and salvage bonuses, bigger holds, similar to mining barges. Role bonus to be able to scan down wreck fields left by players. 2 T2 salvage barges. One covert... for the ninja's of course, say 5 highs. Then 7 high slot super salvage barge, or reclaimer. Bonuses specifically for yield and tractor range for maximum processing. T2s can salvage all wrecks. Why this? Simply that at current, a rookie in a speed dessie can earn as much as an L4 runner. This way, salvagers can salvage at will and it would take about the same skillpoint/isk investment as something like a hulk. This would balance it to other earnings. Also to make it work, need to make salvage tractorable, but doing so causes a flag.
Civilii	Posted - 2009.11.29 21:43:00 - [1118] 1) The idea that making something really expensive will make them uncommon. Make things such as titans and motherships (assuming they become decent) cost TIME (i.e the manufacturing of such items require constant supervision and involvement). 2) Low sec is balls. Make ratting in low sec much more profitable. Put plenty of profitable anomalies in low sec and make sentry guns considerably more powerful. 3) Some tech 1 cruisers and frigates just suck. I mean really. How great would it be if the Tier 1 and Tier 2 frigates, and T1 cruisers (and some tier 2 ones) were real alternatives, and not just because of their price. Those would be nice. Other things are being addressed in dominion (woot). Oh, and fix Empire Wars.
Brainstem Minmatar The Drekla Consortium	Posted - 2009.11.30 19:52:00 - [1119] Edited by: Brainstem on 30/11/2009 19:55:18 1. Projectile weapons need help, tracking or damage (ROF or Alpha pls) 2. Minmatar E-war (target painters are so unimpressive that no one worries about a counter for them, seriously a MWD is worse for sig than 4 target painters. I would rather see Matari get a 1/2 or 1/4 boost to all ewar to reflect their ship flexibility) 3. T2-ammo stacking penalties are horrible particularly for artillery 3.5 rail guns, are they a trick to make Gallente and Caldari think they can snipe with turrets? no damage no rof. Give em some love
Areo Hotah Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.12.01 18:40:00 - [1120] 8 months later and we still have a ****ty Naglfar, that now is even more skill intensive to fly.

Rawls Canardly	Posted - 2009.12.01 19:10:00 - [1121] Skill progression for the mining career is horrible... 1 week to be in a retriever 2 months to advance further (neglecting other skills and pigeonholing you into JUST mining for those two months... refining, etc are neglected in this time) Then... another 1 day to be in a Hulk? to go from grade 2 to grade 6 (Retriever to Hulk) in one fell swoop seems extreme to me, and results in the Covetor being wholly ignored. Perhaps reducing the requirements of the Covetor to Mining Barge IV would smooth it out, by putting the user in one for a full month before he can get to Exhumer.
dickk vandyke	Posted - 2009.12.01 21:32:00 - [1122] the i-hub is TOO big, do you want more people going to 0.0? make it so that they dont need a freighter to make it their home, whose idea was it seriously? this only benefits the big alliances that have JB networks, nothing will change in the eve map because of half assed decisions like this
Llort Zakharov	Posted - 2009.12.01 21:51:00 - [1123] yeah ccp cool ninja nerfing my vexor now i can't even do l1 missions in it even with 4 cap recharger Is and a missile launcher equipad
Moga WyrdSeeker Section XIII Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.12.01 22:45:00 - [1124] Here is the place to purpose ideas, and be read by games designers, so let's go. Originally by: Areo Hotah 8 months later and we still have a **ty Naglfar, that now is even more skill intensive to fly. I totally agree. I'm a minmatar player since February 2007, and I only use minmatar ships. As lots of minmatar players, when the time has come to chose capital ships to fly, I dreamed about the amazing Moros / Revelation, about the strong Archon.. You had some love for the Nidhoggur, and you changed its bonuses, its slot layout, and it become a usefull carrier. Then, a few month ago, you had love for the Naglfar. Yes, it's a so beautiful vertical dread, but he had : - low capacitor recharge rate - low capacitor size - capital projectiles turrets were powerless - capital citadel torp suffered very low explosion velocity - splited weapon system, and few low slot : weak tank, weak damages You changed some things like citadel torp explosion velocity, and the capital projectiles turrets. Later, you changed the bonuses of the, making it a interesting dread : good damages based on projectiles turrets, high alpha strike, powerfull shield tank, but worse than the tank of Phoenix. But with Dominion, I can't understand your choices. You said that theses bonuses (7.5% DMG & ROF) were too powerfull with the last changes of XL turret, and you were probably right. But you choose to nerf again the Naglfar. 1 - You come back to the previous weak bonuses : 5% DMG turret, 5% ROF launcher... But with only 6 low slot, these splited bonuses mean splited fitting : we had to choose between damages and tank... where the other dreads have both. Lots of players explained this problem, you know it well. 2 -** you added one more skill (citadel cruise launcher), meaning we have to skill torp V (rank 4), cruise V (rank 5), large projectil turret V (rank 5) to use the Naglfar, then skill 3 skill rank 7. The Naglfar is now : - the longuest dread to skill - the dread with the worse damage dealing - the dread with the worse average tank - the dread with the worse average HP - the dread with the less powerfull capacitor Where other dreads have all of this : damages, tank, HPs. Please, CCP, answer me. Do you really think the Naglfar is right in this current state ?
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2009.12.02 06:15:00 - [1125] Edited by: Doctor Aibolit on 02/12/2009 06:17:04 Blasters are too close weapon. I understand that blasters have the highest DPS. But optimal + faloff just do not allow to use that advantage. Amarr boats have too much advantages: - lasers are overpowered too long optimal (with scorch optimal is awesome! ) - Amarr ships have more armor and sometimes resistance bonus is available If Minmatar ships are fast, Amarr ships are good for tanking what is Gallente role. They supposed to be a DD? But why they are damage dealer only in EFT?
Lylu	Posted - 2009.12.03 09:12:00 - [1126] 1. Blaster Dmg: is too low and tracking(not range is crap), it need to do atleast 20-40% more dmg then pulse and autocannons and not the same. 2. Vindicator: pathethic dmg compared what the other faction bs are now, increase dmg to atleast 1,5k and reduce drone bay to 25m¦, small changes are also, bit more speed and armor/hull. 3. Moms/Titans...
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.12.04 08:03:00 - [1127] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 04/12/2009 08:05:42 Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 04/12/2009 08:04:35 Target painter bonus for Mimitar should be boosted hella high so that way when a painter bonus'd mimiship paints you it's like having an MWD on, so if a frig is mwd + target painted it's sig is boosted 1000% or something rediculous. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the target painting bonus on mimi ships usefull. might not make much of a difference painting a BS, sure as hell will make frig and cruiser pilots cry when they get painted and a phoon or pest is nailing them for full dmg.
War StalkeR Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.04 17:44:00 - [1128] Well CCP, you've made Guristas Faction Ships are really good, but still they little unbalanced, well, I want to say that their "bonus to missile velocity" is useless, and I'm signing and asking to change their "bonus to missile velocity" to good old "bonus to missile damage" for frig/cruiser and "bonus to missile rate of fire" in order for Guristas Ships to be the part of "Prates Ships League" - at the same level like Machariel and Nightmare, and not just Guristas Ships... or another idea, to give Guristas Ships unique "Special Ability" velocity bonus only to close range missiles, like that: Worm -> Special Ability: "300% bonus to Rocket velocity" Gila -> Special Ability: "300% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile velocity" Rattlesnake -> Special Ability: "300% bonus to Torpedo velocity" Well, after that bonus Guristas Ships will be unique like Sansha's Nation Ships with their Special Ability: "100% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage" P.S. Guristas Ships and Sansha's Nation Ships have the same amount of Weapon Hardpoints I think it's quite good reason to give close range missiles velocity bonus to Guristas ships. P.S.S. To tell the truth I'm impressed by myself that I gave such unique bonus idea for close range missiles velocity bonus, this idea popped up just for a second in my head, while I were writing this post, and this one second were enough for this idea =). CCP, I will pray to the God, to change your mind to add this bonus =) With best regards, your fan, War StalkeR. ___________________________________________________________________________ "Happiness for everybody, freely, and let no one to stay unhappy!" ¬ Strugatskiy Brothers
SickSeven Nova Aquilae	Posted - 2009.12.05 18:05:00 - [1129] Hey CCP how about rebalancing the Naglfar back to Pre-Dominion status??? WTF were ya'll thinking?
Mad templar	Posted - 2009.12.11 00:32:00 - [1130] 1. BC's are to cheap. Their EHP\firepower can be compared to those of HAC's, but BC costs 15-25mil, HAC - 120-150mil. I want to see close range BC's in eve again. Possible (partial) solution - make BC's use large rigs. 2. unballanced dictors, sabre is significatly better then others

War StalkeR Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.11 14:14:00 - [1131] CCP, Will be good if you will return good old engine trails (thruster exhaust) without it EVE looks less cool and realistic... With best regards, your fan, War StalkeR. ___________________________________________________________________________ "Happiness for everybody, freely, and let no one to stay unhappy!" ¬ Strugatskiy Brothers
Lady Australia	Posted - 2009.12.12 16:31:00 - [1132] fix rockets/missiles/phoenix/naglfar/assault ships oh and bring the old cyno effect back. kthxbai
Kal Shanai	Posted - 2009.12.14 00:18:00 - [1133] In a sentence: Please un-**** the dramiels. Atm you need about 30 heavy dps light missile users with a sensor resolution above 1300 to oneshot one of these ers, and thats the only chance you get, since they get up to 5 km/s in a second or two, up to 8.8 km/s if its pimped out with deadspace gear, while intys manage 6 or sumthin with the same fitting. For one the Dramiel now makes every inty look useless. Its unbalanced as **. Thats the only one i got atm.
Rachel Weintraub	Posted - 2009.12.15 09:56:00 - [1134] Edited by: Rachel Weintraub on 15/12/2009 09:58:04 Please, Fix Gallente Weapons on Proteus. It's becomes the worst T3 cruiser. It has good DPS but optimal range at 2k is awfull not mention tank ability (and we have to use MWD to zoom into field to be able to hit anything). Increase range of Blasters or add some range bonuses for T3. Caldari Tangu is buffed - it has much more tank and incredible range and in the same time is cap stable, not mention its superior DPS.
london Gallente Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.16 19:23:00 - [1135] As it's been said 1,000 times before: Fix Blasters/Hybrids. They have blatant tracking issues due to their crap range, and their DPS is barely higher than lazors on paper (let alone in the game world), with a MUCH smaller envelope to do that damage in. I think it's been shown that lazors do something like 90% of the same DPS as blasters, with like 75% more range. Blasters really do need a huge damage buff with a tracking fix to turn them back into the blow-your-face-off shotgun weapon that they should be. The game has changed so many times since the original design of Gallente ships. I think it's time to revisit them as you have with the Minmatar. Cheers
Onin Ra Trail of Tears	Posted - 2009.12.17 02:09:00 - [1136] Originally by: london As it's been said 1,000 times before: Fix Blasters/Hybrids. They have blatant tracking issues due to their crap range, and their DPS is barely higher than lazors on paper (let alone in the game world), with a MUCH smaller envelope to do that damage in. I think it's been shown that lazors do something like 90% of the same DPS as blasters, with like 75% more range. Blasters really do need a huge damage buff with a tracking fix to turn them back into the blow-your-face-off shotgun weapon that they should be. The game has changed so many times since the original design of Gallente ships. I think it's time to revisit them as you have with the Minmatar. Cheers This. Game changed so much with introduction of new scrambler mechanics and 50% webs, blasters are still the same. Some of Gallente ships have outdated bonuses, like thorax with lol-mwd-cap-bonus. The dps differce is only noticible on paper, in game when you take in consideration ship bonuses and slot layouts its so marginal its not even funny. --- First pvp expirience in eve is alot like having first sex, you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, but it is exciting and one way or another its over way too fast.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2009.12.18 04:02:00 - [1137] Hybrid weapon needs boost. CCP please pay attention on blaster/Rails. P.S. Lasers are overboosted.
Zefyr Tarquinas	Posted - 2009.12.22 06:10:00 - [1138] 1. Projectile weaponry needs some love. (looks like this is being looked into already) 2. T4 missions generate too much reward versus the risk. However, with the ISK economy the way it is, nerfing it won't fix the problem, it'll just make things for those who prefer to stay in Empire too difficult to obtain and it might result in cancellations. Instead, give some incentive to go into lo-sec. 3. Give some incentive for using unguided weapons (rockets, torps, ect). Damage alone isn't worth it when the guided missile precision bonuses to guided missiles make them SO much more worth the use.
Vigaz	Posted - 2009.12.23 11:50:00 - [1139] I was thinking about Eagle and hybrids: let me try to compare Deimos and Eagle: Deimos 5 hybrid hardpoints -25% cap for mwd activation, hybrid bonus: 50% falloff + 50% damage + 50m3 drone bay. Eagle 5 hybrid hardpoints 25% resists resists bonus, hybrid bonus: 100% optimal + 25 % damage, no drone bay. both can fit rails and blasters, ofc blasters are much better on the Deimos, and rails are a bit better on the Eagle. I think Eagle should have 15/25M3 drone bay. Eagle with drone bay has the same sniper performance, Imo this change could add a bit of DPS when in short range (that is really missing on this ship, especially compared to a Deimos with rails @ 50km). Check the T1 version: Moa has 15M3 drone bay. Not an huge change, just a little tweek. Vigaz
Ebrey mark2	Posted - 2009.12.23 13:32:00 - [1140] Edited by: Ebrey mark2 on 23/12/2009 13:33:22 1 Rockets. They just need to be, well... Improved. 2 Armor repair systems. Boost them so they'll have a role in pvp. More active modules=more micro management=more rewarding than passive alternative! (Maybe an advanced skill to improve rep/sec, and one for less energy consumed/cycle?) 3 Balancing of AF's. It had to be said again... (Just one example: Enyo. Blaster boat with 2 mid slots???....) Best regards, Ebrey The Tuskers

Kaldoreign Caldari CNexus	Posted - 2009.12.25 22:32:00 - [1141] 1) Gallente are underpowered. Boost their original weaponry - increase blaster range and railgun damage! 2) Drake 3) ECM
McEivalley Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.30 09:48:00 - [1142] Edited by: McEivalley on 30/12/2009 09:55:11 This. Edit- I wanted to point out 2 more things that needs fixing besides EAFs: 1) Balancing of t2 ships slots - I don't think there ever should be a t2 ship variant with less than 2 slots for every power outage (i.e. at least 2+/3+/3+, 3+/2+/3+ or 3+/3+/2+ on every t2 ship). Either redistribute or add, even tweak down other stats for it. 2) Rockets. As all the complaints above and more. Insert clever remark where?
Mya ElleTerego The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.01.06 10:14:00 - [1143] Nerf technitiums need to be on par with other racial moons, so that half of eve isnt damn near worthless. Its a pretty big issue tbh. Alliance Recruit thread Alliance Homepage/Killboard
Khanstruct United Miners and Manufacturers Co. High Treason Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.06 16:08:00 - [1144] Edited by: Khanstruct on 06/01/2010 16:13:26 Edited by: Khanstruct on 06/01/2010 16:09:00 1) Hybrid Turrets need to be re-looked at their advantages do not out-weigh the disadvantages like in other weapon systems. They could use more damage or more tracking. Maybe reduce the amount of cap they use? 2) Assault Frigates need a buff 3) Nerf lvl 4 missions or buff low/null sec, low risk should net lower rewards.
Fire Stone	Posted - 2010.01.06 20:12:00 - [1145] Has any Dev's taken a look at the EOS lately. This ship cant even be sold for a profit with a highly researched BPO because nobody wants it. Sadly I don't have a good way to fix this ship compared to its peers.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2010.01.07 23:41:00 - [1146] Is this thread still being looked at post dominion? anyway my top 3: Tech 1 ships: There are a significant amount of T1 ships that are effectively useless because of antiquated tier seperation. For example a Slasher, though intended as a tackler rarely(if ever)gets used as such due to lack of slots. Frigate sized weaponry: Turrets have a discrepancy in fitting requirements, projectile turrets have very low requirements relative to lasers and hybrids. Missiles otoh are sorely lacking in dps, rockets being chief of the suck pile. Assault frigs: 4th bonus kthx, maybe make them to a marauder style fitting? doo eet! -- stuff --
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.01.09 04:37:00 - [1147] Kronos is underpowered. Compare DPS of Golem and Paladin with DPS of Kronos. Becouse of blaster range I use Rails for PVE. I see that Railgun tracking and DPS are lower then Beam Lasers.
Midori Amiiko Revival Of The Talocan Empire	Posted - 2010.01.09 10:56:00 - [1148] 1: implant salvaging...as expensive as those buggers are, a person with lvl 5 salvage (or maybe another skill like biology) should be able to recover them from frozen corpses. Implants show up in officer wrecks, right? 2: AI needs to be a little sharper. Rats shouldn't attack players when Concord is in the same belt. I like how rats jump around in a system, but at lower sec levels (less than 0.3) they should scan down and attack uncloaked ships in safe spots. They should hang around stations. If there's a rat-related combat anomaly then there should be a period of boosted spawn rates for as long as it exists. Sometimes rats in nul-sec will warp to a gate. They should camp it--for real. If there's an officer spawn, all rats should act in a co-ordinated manner, especially when it comes to defending that officer. 3: not really a balance issue, but it's strange to get items in loot drops that I probably should have seen used during the fight. Drones come to mind. Might be fun to see more drones used by NPC's against PvE'ers. I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way John Paul Jones
Leskit	Posted - 2010.01.10 04:24:00 - [1149] 1) blasters. wow. either increase their range, or their tracking by A LOT. also, t2 ammo needs to NOT have a stacking for the penalties. a maelstrom with 8 guns and quake ammo? it energy neutralizes itself! totally useless compared to faction EMP ammo. 2)Armor tank vs shield tank. In any scenario, a shield tank is always going to rep more dps than armor. shields have an active implants set (crystals) and armor gets a passive bonus that's really only good on battleship and larger sized ships. even dual repping armor (i.e. 2 large armor reps) is less effective than using a x-large shield booster compared to large (same fitting requirements, fyi) the only way to best a shield tank is to use faction reps (but oh wait....that doesn't make a difference compared to faction shield stuff)-armor doesn't tank as much dps as a equivalent shield setup, and we loose space for damage mods. conversly, shield tankers loose spots for tackling and ab/mwd mods. it needs to be fixed-one have a reason for less dps tank-like more dps done 3) low/null sec vs. missions: My alliance is based out of the scalding pass region, and as of dominion, we have all of the system upgrades to lvl 4-5. Ratting for an hour, even with chained belts is FAR less profitable than missioning (I average one every 45-90 minutes, and can make up to 25 mil in that time using my abaddon) The only way null sec is better than mission is when the odd 7 or 8 level plex pops up, and i'm not on very often (college student) change up null sec profitablity. thx
Exitar Stormscion	Posted - 2010.01.14 06:37:00 - [1150] 1) T3 ships. They are not really that versatile as it is thought they are , majority of subsistems suck ( bonuses and fittings and stats ) . I dont ask to buff usefull setups but subsistems like wakelimiter and drone subsistem on legion are very very bad. Modular design is quite bad it is usually deference between 6 4 6 or 6 5 5 slot layout or something like that. Very few options for so expansive ships. 2) Asault frigates and some T1 cruisers need buffs ( aurgoror ). 3) t2 ammo needs rebalansing. Mortal in body Eternal in will.

Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2010.01.14 22:38:00 - [1151] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 14/01/2010 22:38:54 Neuts.... vamps and cap boosters aren't a very good counter ECM drones they need a nerf, or make the other Ewar drones just as powerfull.. actually make the other ewar drones more powerfull Target Painter bonus for mimi ships. it's near useless. Give use maybe bonus to vamps, or extra bonus to speed, eh.... a bonus to something more usefull than target painters. maybe ECCM. idk. T2 ammo needs to be fixed
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.01.15 03:04:00 - [1152] There's a balance issue I'd like to raise. Tho I have absolutely no hope that it will be taken seriously or addressed in anyway, I'll do it out of principle. The issue is about "hot dropping" cyno mechanics. I think current implementation of cyno generator makes it too easy for anyone to create a hot drop. On top of ease of use, it is very hard to identify ships carrying cyno. Certainly a ship scanner can be used, but it would be extremely inefficient in battle situation. And even you know the ship is a cyno bait, there are no game tools to identify the strength or location of the gang waiting on that cyno. In EVE, being a "smart" pvp'er goes a long way. But it doesn't matter how smart you are when you enemy just happens to have a cyno with a gang waiting many jumps away. It is totally random, and that randomness ruins the fun of trying to outwit the enemy. I would suggest that the balance should shift slightly against "hot drop" tactic users by making it easy to visually identify cyno carrying ships on Overview. And perhaps, introducing a new module that creates cyno-jammer effect within 30km radius - basically tackle range for pvp. Such a module should have similar fitting stats as cyno generator. it's impact on the battlefield would be such that hot dropping would be a little less sudden and more difficult - 30+ km from target. It would allow players on both sides to make more elaborate battle strategies.
Markus Chen Caldari Super Friends Club	Posted - 2010.01.15 20:31:00 - [1153] 1. Tech II ammo. For example, look at heavy precision missiles. I assume they are meant for hitting interceptors (unless it was assumed a drake would wait ten seconds to switch ammo types to get on a frig/assault-frig killmail). Sadly though, the reduced range, inadequate explosion radius and slow relative speed of the missile itself have rendered this ammo type useless to me in most every situation.
Daishi Kurita Illicit Technologies	Posted - 2010.01.17 19:03:00 - [1154] Edited by: Daishi Kurita on 17/01/2010 19:02:59 1. Boost the amount of battleships and better the chances of escalations / faction spawns in 0.0 Cosmic Anomalies: It is a simple solution that would solve the imbalance of Level 4 missions to living in 0.0. It was claimed that Dominion would support more players in a system and really it hasn't changed at all. NOBODY is running Cosmic Anomalies, people still rely on belt rats and DED complexes for the majority of income in 0.0. (which has been the case for half a decade) Many escalation complexes and cosmic anomalies are underwhelming in terms of rewards and isk per hour. The rats inside need to be more battleship oriented for better salvage and bounties, also the chance of escalation needs to be significantly boosted and the jump radius needs to be HIGHLY reduced. If you expect to be able to support more people in a smaller area you cant expect people to run off into hostile space to finish an escalation. Ontop of that non-escalating anomalies need more consistent rewards in general. With Level 4 missions you have guaranteed rewards (lp) and bonuses from agents (implants and other goodies). 2. Data Interfaces for invention need to expire! Not quickly at all but EVENTUALLY. The price of interfaces are in the toilet! Major rewards of your "mini-profession" hacking are becoming totally worthless. I would call the rewards highly broken already. But really with interfaces never ever expiring, in a year or sooner there will be NO REWARD AT ALL.
JZIM Caldari Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.01.18 22:36:00 - [1155] 1) Shortrange Missiles: Rockets should have competitive damage to their counterpart weapon systems. Torpedoes should have range scaled properly with their class, currently they have the range of cruiser sized weapons. 2) Tech 1 'Tiering': Currently there are very few tech 1 ships that adequately fill their intended role, would be good to see these buffed. Particularly thinking about tackling frigates (condor, executioner, atron, slasher) getting interceptor-style bonuses, and logistics hulls (osprey, scythe, execquror, auguror) getting proper logistics-style bonuses and fitting instead of lolmining bonuses. This will greatly widen opportunities for entry level PVP, as well as making T1 PVP gangs much more viable and diverse. Similarly roles at BC level could also use a rework, gallente have 2 BCs with active tank bonuses (no gang ships ), Amarr have T2 missile boats but nothing at tech 1 that acts as a midway point (missile mauler/proph plox )... 3) ECM: (Forlorn hope choice, can't help myself ). Targeting is the way that all ships interact in eve, so having modules or drones that can arbitrarily remove this ability is pretty risky business to start with. I'd say currently ECM is reasonably well balanced in gang/fleet situations but still far too effective on single targets: there needs to be some kind of penalty for using multiple ECM devices on the same target simultaneously, or mechanics need to be altered so that its much harder to create the 'permajammed' illusion.
thoth rothschild Strategic Solutions Ltd. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.01.18 23:55:00 - [1156] 1) EOS - Very very unpopular ship 2) BO - scanres penalty cloak 3) rockets - who uses em ?
Dr Cedric Caldari The Nietzian Way Vanguard.	Posted - 2010.01.19 05:34:00 - [1157] I'll add in my opinion, mostly since I can't be flamed in this thread!! HA! 1. Tier System: It totally antiquates almost all of the sub BS sized ships (perhaps the logistics/ewar cruisers are saved, but every frigate and the Tier 1 BC's are basically useless) Please undo the "tier-ing" of at least the BC's and put them on even grounds with each other. They should be there for players to have alternatives, not so players have an obsolete, underpowered, under-flown ship. 2. More destroyer variants: this probably goes with the un-tier-ing mentioned in number 1. There are 5-6 frigate choices, 4 cruiser choices, 2 BC choices and 3 BS choices....there should be at least 3 destroyer choices included in this, and they should not be tiered. In other words equally powerful platforms for different play styles, and perhaps the odd "salvage boat" idea that lots have posted with. 3. Black Ops. For a half a billion ISK investment, it would be nice to get better performance from these ships than what currently stands. Perhaps a change in the decloak sensor calibration timer, perhaps a few extra high slots, perhaps resists in line w/ HAC's/Logistics and almost every other T2 ship in the game. 4. Just cuz i can!! T3 ships: With all the variations availiable, there still seems to be one favorite choice for most players, and I think thats because most of the sub-systems underperform compared to the one "FOTM" subsystem. I can speak from Tengu Experience that the Missile sub-system is really the only good option, and thats for PvP/E in most cases. Yeah, it can do other things, but you really have to sacrifice alot of survivability and/or damage to do those things, that, honestly, a T2 recon or Logistic or Command ship can do MUCH better. that is all : ) Dr Cedric CEO Orbital Industry and Research -OIR-
Katherine Rouge Universal Mayhem	Posted - 2010.01.23 18:06:00 - [1158] 1. Rockets. Can't even hit most frigate-sized vessels, when they do, the damage is negligible. See e.g Vengeance, Crow. 2. Tank on Drakes. Drakes being the only BCs capable of soloing class 3s wormholes with average skills is the best example. Passive tanked Drake in pvp is also unbalanced. 3. Local in k-space. Reveals far too much info.
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.28 18:04:00 - [1159] My list of imbalances : Webifiers : There is no counter module, makes frigates and destroyers pretty much useless if they get webbed. Suggestions : Give us a module to reduce or negate webifiers. Also, make webifier less effective against larger ships (it's mainly an anti-frigate device anyway). Maybe change the webifier effect so it increase mass or inertia, making the ship sluggish but not unable to move. Missiles : Often cheaper than gun ammos. I think it would make sense if their cost reflected their tracking nature. Also would be nice if there was a working counter to missiles so it's possible to avoid their damage in some way. Maybe a missile jammer module or something. Tanking : This is an imbalance because shooting cost isks, but tanking does not. The way the game works, it's possible to tank indefinitely and repair all damage for free (meaning we hardly ever use repair facility if we have the skills to use repair modules). Repair modules (be it shields, armor, hull) should have a maximum amount of damage they can repair/refil, then need to be refiled/repaired/replaced. This would create a new isk sink too.
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:55:00 - [1160] Autocannons require tiny amount of CPU and PG comparing with Blasters and Lasers

Beshla Tikolumor	Posted - 2010.02.02 17:31:00 - [1161] 1) + 2) + 3) Black Ops need their jump range doubled. Currently they frequently can't even jump from one constellation to the next within one region.
Tagami Wasp Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.02.05 22:09:00 - [1162] 1) Rockets, you know you said they need fixing CCP, get to it. 2) Railguns. FFS, do something, they need more dps. 3) Caldari railboats. They need more powergrid. 4) LAGGGGG. Before anything else fix that, or there is no reason to balance anything. LOL ------------ Railgun performance required fix: - +15% railgun damage modifier - +10% PG for Caldari railgun ships
Soon Shin	Posted - 2010.02.08 17:13:00 - [1163] Edited by: Soon Shin on 08/02/2010 17:13:46 I think the Paladin should have its bonuses fixed. At Amarr BS5 it does 25% less damage than the Abaddon and the Nightmare beats it out at its relative BS 5. If you look at the other maruaders, they have their battleships skill give them a damage related boosts. So at BS5 the Kronos and Vargur has a 25% boost, the Golem has a damage boost in regards to its 25% explosion velocity (makes torpedos more viable), the Paladin has zero. It it only at Marauders Level 5, that it receives the same bonuses which requires more than a month and a million SP to do so. Not to mention CCP seems to have given all the maruaders the same amount of Cap (5625 GJ) without factoring in for the ships themselves. The Paladin has 33% less capacitor than its Tech 1 counterpart the Apocalypse (7500 GJ) and it does not match up to it even with max skills (7032 GJ) and it also does not even have reduction in cap use for laser than the Apocalypse does. It may not be as much of a factor since it uses half the guns, but the Kronos also has the same advantage and Golem and Vargur's weapons don't use cap at all. The Paladin's capacitor should be increased to 7500 GJ like the Apocalypse, and have its cap bonus replaced. The other marauders have had their capacitor increased or stayed the same. It should be replaced with a tracking bonus that all other marauders receive. The Golem gets a bonus to target painters which is like a tracking computer. Both the Kronos and the Paladin has a fairly useless bonus to stasis to webifiers. Blasters are not viable for missions which leaves only Railguns for the Kronos, and the Paladin is meant to use Tachyons and perhaps Mega Pulses, in which webifiers will do little for the ranges that they operate in. I propose replacing the stasis webifier with the bonus to range that both Golem and Vargur receive. Current: Paladin Amarr Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to capacitor capacity and 10% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems and 5% bonus to large energy turret damage per level Kronos Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage and 10% bonus to the velocity factor of stasis webifiers per level Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems and 7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon tracking per level Proposed change: Paladin Amarr Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large energy turret damage and 7.5% large energy turret tracking speed per level. Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems and 7.5% bonus to Large Energy Turret optimal range per level. Kronos Gallente Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large hybrid weapon damage and 7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon tracking per level. Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to repair amount of armor repair systems and 7.5% bonus to large hybrid weapon optimal range per level This will create a better balance between the marauders and allow them to get the same damage bonuses at the same amount of required skillpoints and time.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.17 00:25:00 - [1164] Edited by: Red Raider on 17/02/2010 00:25:32 Instead of 3 rows of slots make 6 rows of slots along similar lines. Weapons Propulsion Sensors Armor Hull Power Yeah because balancing that would seriously screw up the next few years for you but it would fix a hell of a lot more with EVE than the current nerf/balance/nerf/balance crap.
Meditril	Posted - 2010.02.17 17:06:00 - [1165] Contrary to some previous posts I think that Active Shield Tanking is much to much inferior compared to Armor Tanking. If you decide to Active Shield Tanking you always heave big issues regarding cap due to inefficiency of Shield Tanking which means that you can't install enough hardeners. So compared to a similar Armor Tanking Setup you have laughtable low Total-HP. Armor Tanking Battleships easily get a total HP (after resists) of 100,000 points while with Active Shield Tanking you are often at laughtable 20,000 to 30,000 points. Additionally to this shields significantly increase your signature which results that you receive much more damage (this is especially true for Minmatar ships which rely on small signature).
Meditril	Posted - 2010.02.17 17:18:00 - [1166] Another point I really would like to name is: Minmatar needs more Split-Weapon-Ships with proper bonus. Currently the only ships with Bonus to both missiles and guns are: - Fleet Scimitar (Faction Ship) - Typhoon + Fleet Typhoon - Huginn - Loki (with proper components) Thats really weak! Give us at least: - One T1 and T2 Frig with Split Weapons Bonus and maybe small drone bay. - One T1 Cruiser (non-faction) with Split Weapons Bonus - How about changing the Cyclone to 7.5% Shieldboost + 5% Projectile and Missile ROF bonus with a 4 Missiles + 4 Guns slot Layout?
Sophia Germain Fluxion	Posted - 2010.02.18 12:41:00 - [1167] Scanners are horribly imbalanced compared to other modules in game. Please look here for a more detailed explanation: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271221
DXYOC	Posted - 2010.02.24 19:01:00 - [1168] 1 Hybrids 2 Hybrids 3 Hybrids See the treads about em , to lazy to wall'o'text here.
Kyle Cataclysm Blue.	Posted - 2010.03.02 14:57:00 - [1169] 1) Pos graphics. All structures are cluttered, which makes accessing them difficult. Theres a thread about this in the assembly hall, called "Resurrecting the dead horse". The issue itself is four years old. 2) Mining revamp. Mineral rebalance is needed, as several mineral prices are too low. Drone regions are producing a large Nocxium/Isogen surplus. Mining in lowsec is not worth it. 3) T1 cruiser balance. Bellicose, Maller, all the T1 logistic cruisers to name a few.
Hueijin San Gallente Estrale Frontiers	Posted - 2010.03.03 09:57:00 - [1170] 1: T3 subsystems. I can only speak for the proteus, but at least the offensive subs aren't balanced enough, with the middle-ground (Hybrid Propulsion) has a combined firepower that in most cases are superior to the other main ones; Drone Synth is nearly useless because it limits the turrets too much and Dissonic EP has no drones at all, and the meager tracking bonus over the Hybrid Prop sys doesn't offset the use of small drones for frigs+++ Also, when a T3 ship cannot compete with a T2 ship (ishtar) when it comes to passive tank and damage beyond 20km something is wrong with the t3. 2: Tanking systems. Shield tanking (active and particularily passive) has ships (races) specialized in these at a severe advantage, both to station autoregen and fittings in general. Since there is no way to passively tank armor and passive shield tanking can be so awesome, something feels unbalanced. 3: Hybrid guns. They just aren't cutting it. See other threads on this forum that sums up my concerns better than a single post could ever do.

Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.03.03 19:07:00 - [1171] 1) Vargur needs more power grid to make a 1400 artillary boat, right now you sacrifice rigs and lows just to get enough power grid to even fit 1200's 2) RAILS they needz ze damage increase. 3) T3 need drone bays (im looking at the legion) 4) assualt frigs need that 4th bonus!
Regellus	Posted - 2010.03.04 16:50:00 - [1172] 1) Salvaging ships - it would be nice to have a ship other than a marauder that has a tractor beam range greater than 20km. 2) Cosmic Anomalies in null sec space need to be revamped to provide a greater hourly isk income. In a system with military lvl 5, I'm lucky when 4/20 cosmic anomalies provide greater than 20mil isk. The other 16 aren't even worth warping to. 3) Escalations must have a MUCH shorter jump range.
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2010.03.04 18:50:00 - [1173] 1) AFK Cloak pilots, i think some type of timer on the cloak maybe 30 minutes to an hour, if you warp while cloaked your timer resets, if you decloak and click on the cloak button again, your timer is reset. This should solve the problem with AFK cloak pilots, I understand this doesn't solve the issue in regards to Macro players, but it will help the issue where the player logs in and cloaks then goes AFK. 2) price of ships above battleship is too low, it needs to multiplied by a factor of 100%. Everyone and their mother can get these ships now, and that reduces the idea of having a cap ship as a special weapon. 3) Sovereignty of a system should give you intel of the system you are in, should someone not set to blue enter the system that you have sovereignty over, your stargate should notify you of this as you are the owner of the system and there for should have some method of monitoring traffic.
Vizirion	Posted - 2010.03.06 07:21:00 - [1174] Hybrid's really need some love. Just no any good reason's to fly with them this day's, except situation when you trained only for it. I mean all hybrid's, blaster's and rail's, in all classes and ship's with bonuses to them.
Chabalym	Posted - 2010.03.08 06:30:00 - [1175] 1. Passive shield recharge amount I don't see why that should get so many hp back because of the amount of hp that have its not like I can chuck a heap of nano bots over my ship to passively repair my armour .all so what's up with the med and low slots mods for shield tanking ? 2. ecm is overpowered compared to the other e-warfare, and all so why do that get a bs that dose e warfare but the others do not? 3, ammar and gal, why out of the 2 races are the only ones that really use cap for weapons and can only do 2 damage types, witch I don't mined but the cap hurts us more when we get nutted as we cant shoot back even if missile fitted ships get jammed that can still shot at stuff with fof and that can all so kill drones witch hurts gal dps and as for that i cant see why that many other races can use drones in there ships when its meant to be a gal thing
Lani Sun	Posted - 2010.03.09 13:15:00 - [1176] 1) Fix blasters by increasing range or better tracking. 2) Active shield tank is overpowered compared to active armor tank. A shield tank always reps more dps than armor. And shields can use Xtra large reppers and shield boost amplifiers which have no equivalent in armor tanks. 3) Legion should have better subs and better use of drones with lasers.
FerdinandNL FCR	Posted - 2010.03.10 15:26:00 - [1177] Edited by: FerdinandNL FCR on 10/03/2010 15:30:03 Hi My list for changes. (1) Each station should be like those from amarr that you get ejected out a station not that someone can dock up after a small while. (2) Neutral rep those should get a timer that they cant dock or jump for 30seconds after they last repair or aid. (3) Mabye like something that you can get a tab in local chat and say you only want to see war targets its a pain in the ass to scroll through a huge system. Thnx
Syzygium Amarr Friends Of Harassment	Posted - 2010.03.18 03:24:00 - [1178] #1 : Rockets. Seriously guys, they are completely useless atm. It should be a close-range small-ship weapons system. So it obviously needs to have higher explo-velocity than every other missile, and a LOT. Consider that most frigsize ships move with ~1000m/s (AB) and 2-3k (MWD). The current explo velocity of 85 is a joke, even if you can dualweb or scramble your opponent. #2 : ECM. Way too strong compared to the other EWAR-Techniques. Shorten the Jam Duration to 10 Seconds instead of 20 and just gray out the Target Picture so you can't activate Modules on it, but don't remove the lock. #3 : Dramiel. No Frig should be faster than Interceptors. Give her a bit more tank and cap but reduce speed. Even the slowest Interceptor should be a bit faster than any T1 Frigate, no matter if Faction or not, its an Interceptor damnit.
Sassy B Kenssy Fried Chicken Kru	Posted - 2010.03.21 16:25:00 - [1179] heh my list is exactly the same as the previous posters 1. Rockets. They need increased explosion velocity and/or raw damage output so they can approach turrets in effectiveness. 2. ECM. Too powerful. Too lame. Total rework needed. 3. Dramiel. I think the speed is cool, and fits its super-minmatar theme. However, in combination with its current EHP+DPS it's plainly unbalanced compared to the other faction frigates. Should a Dramiel really out-damage a Succubus??? If you remove the dronebay it remains a rifter/firetail on steroids, and retains its current survivability, but becomes far more balanced in comparison to other t1/t2/faction frigates.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.03.23 11:32:00 - [1180] 1. Roflkets. 2. Field Command ships. They offer far too little over a tier 2 BC and are far too dificult to fit when using a gang mod. Rework the class - more fittings and slots, and bonuses to fitting a single gang mod would be worth looking at. 3. Gang mods themselves. Minmatar links are great, Amarr are good, Gallente and Caldari are crap. Sort the balance out. 4. Shield transporter CPU requirements. BS remote-rep is armour-RR, because large remote armour reps are easy to fit and large shield trasnporters are impossible to fit. The modules are similar in effect (HP/cap and HP/sec) and it's absolutely crazy that the shield transporter takes up about 20% of the CPU of a BS, when armour RR is so easy to fit. The domination of RR BS by armour kills diversity, hinders the use of shield-tanking BS and is fundamentally bad for the game. Either fix armour RR by bringing armour RR PG requirements in line with shield transporter CPU requirements, or fix shield transporter CPU requirements by bringin them in line with armour PG requirements, as % of typical BS' PG and CPU. 5. Faction ships. Come on. Who thought the Dramiel was balanced with the Worm?

Bravyan	Posted - 2010.03.24 03:28:00 - [1181] 1. Gallente ships 2. Gallente hybrid turrents 3. Gallente armour tanking Need I say more
Lady Shaniqua Minmatar Kenssy Fried Chicken Kru	Posted - 2010.03.24 21:48:00 - [1182] 1.) ECM 2.) Rockets 3.) ECM
Aleks Vens	Posted - 2010.03.26 15:40:00 - [1183] Hello. I would like to know... this new ship.. strategic cruiser. Why the fK it's so easy to learn on it?? EASIER then on golem - the king of the ships fo agentrunners! On golem I have to learn 3 MONTHS! And what about tengu? only 20 fking days and thats all! My friend will now be more powerful than me!!!! Do you aware what does it mean? NO BALANCE! Tell me, how it can be?? And the cost... 1 billion for a good golem. and 600 millions for a good tengu? with fit. And again about torpedoes... Why did you decrease the max range of them? For what?? You made golem pease of expensive ***. Why did you do this? Don't you carry about players? I must learn on tengu at least 5 MONTHS!!!! but not these 20 fcking days. And 1 day to learn this 1x skills... to make your tengu super tank. This is balance?? This is ***, but not balance. Tengu is cheaper, easier, more manoeuvrable, more damage (yes, i saw one well-fitted tengu, it was awesome) More resists. 80%!!! Can you aware it? Can you aware what it allows to do?? And as you decreased range of torpedoes, move away this useless bonuses on target painters on golem. You think this is still in use with cruise missiles?? I think not. Then why you dont carry about this fcking balance? Add new bonuses! on golem. Make it usefull again please! ok, I hope on your chariness. And thank you for reading till the very end.
Shoosh	Posted - 2010.03.28 19:55:00 - [1184] Gallente - they need some PVP balance.
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.03.29 02:00:00 - [1185] Originally by: Aleks Vens Hello... Golem is much better for mission running. It is dedicated mission running ship. Play more to understand this :)
WAuter Gallente	Posted - 2010.04.05 11:05:00 - [1186] 1. Blasterships, damage and tracking. 2. Droneboats: remove gun bonuses and give an extra bonus towards drones, reduce cpu fitting requirements for T1 drone upgrades and bring T2 drone upgrades into the game (give t2 DU the same fitting requirements as the T1 DU now have) 3. Assault ships 4th bonus/overhaul.
Aphex8	Posted - 2010.04.07 07:55:00 - [1187] 1. Rockets need to be fixed they are lame and weak, Also defender missiles need to have a 50/50 chance of not hitting its target. Its really lame when a 100isk defender missiles will always hit my 1000isk torpedo. 2. High Sec, you need to add an invulnerable timer when coming out of gates and stations. Getting killed in high sec on a gate is really childish and shouldn't happen I mean its HIGH SEC! There should be a lock on all weapons in 1.0 and 9.0 meaning no firing at all unless you have stolen from another character and in 8.0 to 5.0 their should be longer invulnerable times coming out of stations and gates making sure you can fly safely in high sec systems. Or at least give no fire zones like at gates and stations but you can fly to a belt and fight or planet. 3. Detailing, I think ships start to get boring after a while we should be able to change little things on ships looks like color, lights, the way its shaped when different modules are fitted. Little things but still making your ship look a little different from everyone else.
Dmoney3788	Posted - 2010.04.10 03:56:00 - [1188] 1. industry/military indexes of the ihub: the industry index rises too slow compared to the military index given the same amount of man hours contributing to each index. It seems impossible to get industry lvl 5 upgrades given a small/medium sized corp. 2. 0.0 is not as profitable as level 4 hisec missions, and has much more risk involved. Either nerf hisec lvl 4 missions or boost the income from 0.0 sites. 3. Passive shield tanking: Something seems wrong with it, the fact that you can make an effective passive shield tank out of almost any BC. Perhaps the shield recharge rate and the effects of adding shield extenders should be looked into.
Gavinat0r Antares Shipyards Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.13 12:27:00 - [1189] Originally by: Lani Sun 1) Fix blasters by increasing range or better tracking. 2) Active shield tank is overpowered compared to active armor tank. A shield tank always reps more dps than armor. And shields can use Xtra large reppers and shield boost amplifiers which have no equivalent in armor tanks. 3) Legion should have better subs and better use of drones with lasers. ARE YOU JOKING......... Active armor tank is so much better then shield, Its called nano pumps... 2 LARS on a mega or domi with 2 nano pumps and a accel pump and you have free mids for injector = wtf pwn thats about 1000 dps tank you cant get any where near that with a decent dps shield tanker, besides maelstrom which pawns. X-large shield booster have you seen grid it needs
menacemyth	Posted - 2010.04.15 16:23:00 - [1190] topic is balancing so here i goes! Spend a little time revamping the amount and quality of profession and complex sites. Currently they are great in and around gurista and angel space, suck everywhere else and are completely non-existent in drone space. I understand each region should be unique but there's no excuse for the lack of content or creativity in some areas. Obviously some content programmers went to lunch early in this area!

Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.04.16 17:45:00 - [1191] Less pirate ships, but stronger and worth more (giving some need for speed and reducing difference between PvE and PvP Logistics - aggro rules make them difficult to counter in empire Dock/Undock ranges on stations are too large Buffer tanks in general are much much better for pvp than active tanks making gank and buffer + RR the only effective way to pvp - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
Entilzah Valen H A V O C	Posted - 2010.04.24 17:47:00 - [1192] Buffer tanking is my only peeve. I'll break the rules a little bit to explain it for you. For this one we'll have to travel back in time. 2006/2007. Nanoing was the way to go for small scale PvP. Reasons being were pretty simple, in fact most of everything in EVE boils down to it: Risk. In the event that your ideal situation went south, with a nano fitted ship, you could mitigate the risk of losing it by having the ability to run away like a pansy. In the event that you found a target that required more damage, you'd end up bringing friends more and more often. Hard to kill a Battleship with a Vagabond. Numbers. It obviously could be done, but the ideal locations were A) Off gates and stations and B) Distant from your targets backup. You needed time. Time. So, in the end, you had blobs of ships fitted with a "Velocity Buffer" dedicated to mitigating the risk of losing their ship as an individual. Now, if you take that all away, you of course resort to the next best thing. In this case, buffer tanks. With a buffer tank, those conditions are all flipped. By proxy, your agreeing to be a willing target if you fit with a buffer. You fit that way with the firm realization that your going to take damage, and the whole idea is to outlast your target so that you can escape or kill him, whichever comes first. Now, put two competent pilots against one another and they've probably made the same realizations. So they'll be fit the same. Neither of them wants to lose a ship or a fight, and their friends want kills and fights. So you get gangs of people running around with buffer tanks. And the only way to kill those gangs is to meet them with a better gang of buffer tanked ****heads. Multiply this over and over as each side tries to counter one another, and you get a mad case of blobbing. 150 pilots jumping in on about the same to get a fight. Probably turns a lot of the subscriber base off to PvP if that is what they have to go through in order to have fun. Solutions: Stacking nerf percentage based armor and shield mods. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes It took you 8 months to do this. GJ. - EV
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2010.04.27 02:41:00 - [1193] Originally by: Entilzah Valen Stacking nerf percentage based armor and shield mods. resist mods are already stacking penalized. what ruined the fine numbers were rigs, especially the large trimark armor pump. for most fits, there is little sense in using something else. regenerative plating: 6%, energized regenerative membrane: 12,5%, (large) trimark 15% ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
MacGuiness The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre	Posted - 2010.04.29 03:01:00 - [1194] 1) Caldari slot layout and/or where shield mods should go and/or base shield resists Basically this boils down to fitting and hitpoints. If you fly Caldari with the exception of only a few ships, your choice boils down to tank or gank. Any gank modules you fit will adversely affect your tank and any tank you fit adversely affects your ability to hold somebody in place. Here's an example. Take a full buffer mega and you get 130,000 EHP (thereabouts). You also still have 4 slots in which to choose your gank and sustainment mods. lets say, MWD, scram, web, cap booster. Now take a Raven and fit MWD, Scram, and web. (I'll make the slots even. 3 tank, 3 gank). The best you can do is about 90.000 EHP. This is a full 40,000 EHP lower than the mega. To get even close to the Mega's tank, you have to drop both the scram and the web. This leaves you with just an MWD. Something needs to be done about this. It boils down to: 1: Complete slot redesign to give most Caldari ships more mid slots. 2: Complete slot redesign while changing shield mods to low slot items. 3: Adjust base shield resists for Caldari ships only to be in-line with armor resists of other races. 4: Combination of the above. Honestly, I'm most in favor of changing shield tank items to low-slots and then redistributing the mid-slots. It provides the best balance between tank/gank/and damage output across the board. It's a major game changer but unfortunately if you just provide more mid-slots, you will have players who will fill those mids with pure tank and suddenly your looking at a 200k EHP ship that can also dish out 1k DPS in damage. 2) (still list of top 3 issues) ECM. Reduce to 10-second timer and maybe a slight decrease in strength. 3) Blasters: Give em back most of their range but not their tracking. They were way too good at hitting smaller stuff in the past and they are now on par, tracking-wise, with Large AC's. Slightly better than, actually.
Noveron Caldari Aitnaru	Posted - 2010.04.29 09:49:00 - [1195] Edited by: Noveron on 29/04/2010 09:49:49 1¦ Risk vs. Profit in lowsec/wormholes for solo people 2¦ Loot Tables 3¦ Shield Tanking ---
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:20:00 - [1196] Edited by: Fettered Soul on 29/04/2010 23:24:31 Originally by: MacGuiness 1) Caldari slot layout and/or where shield mods should go and/or base shield resists Armor ships should choose between tank and damage (low slots for tank modules OR Damage modes) Caldari ships should choose between tank and e-warfare (middle slots for tank modules OR utility - AB/MWD/EWarFare/Tackle) Propose better Raven slot layout :) And remember that total slot amount should be like other race have. You compare Mega and Raven EHP? Ok. Do you consider their DPS-range? Mega: Neutrons + 2MFS = 735 DPS at 4.5km optimal (no drones) Raven: Siege + 2BCU (you can set 3 without tank sacrifice) = 843 DPS at 30km So in some conditions you can hit without hitback even? You also can shoot in resist hole and your real DPS will be near EFT numbers. Originally by: MacGuiness 3) Blasters: Give em back most of their range but not their tracking. They were way too good at hitting smaller stuff in the past and they are now on par, tracking-wise, with Large AC's. Slightly better than, actually. Long time ago blasters were good because of 90% stasis web. Degrading 90% webs degraded blasters. Blasters with better range = AC. Blaster just need more DPS. Pulse lasers shoot 85% blaster damage at 300% blaster optimal - it is unfair. AC shoot 80% blaster damage at 200% blaster falloff (no cap use, selectable damage type) - it is unfair.
Gelvina	Posted - 2010.04.30 09:31:00 - [1197] 1. storyline items in relationship to tech2 and faction perhaps. 2. augmented drones? 3. t2 ammo!!
Zedia Zhane	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:40:00 - [1198] 1. Financial advantage of T2 BPO manufacturing. 2. Drakes. They are significantly better at PvE than any other BC in the game. Which is why you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. Especially in a wormhole. 3. Meta 4 T1 modules vs T2. The game is really inconsistent where for some items the Meta 4 T1 is significantly better than the T2. I'd like to see this better balanced across the board. (On the other hand, this would be a huge amount of work, probably more than it's worth.) Insurance would have made the list at #1, but I understand that's being addressed in Tyrannis.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:18:00 - [1199] Edited by: Whitehound on 02/05/2010 18:18:58 I have only now read about the coming changes with Tyrannis and regarding the loot from missions. I think it is a great idea to stop the flow of the standard T1 items (meta 0) coming from mission runs and drop other stuff instead. However, so far the word is that tags or something will drop. IMHO, the best substitute for me would be to have more T2 salvage in the game. These are very rare and T2 rigs are extremely expensive. Since we now have so many rigs and these are becoming more and more a "must have" would a reduction in prices of T2 rigs be a nice move. --
Comm Den	Posted - 2010.05.02 22:34:00 - [1200] Originally by: Lani Sun 1) Fix blasters by increasing range or better tracking. 2) Active shield tank is overpowered compared to active armor tank. A shield tank always reps more dps than armor. And shields can use Xtra large reppers and shield boost amplifiers which have no equivalent in armor tanks. 3) Legion should have better subs and better use of drones with lasers. 1 blasters are made for close combat 2 active tank isnt overpowered try a raven vs a megathron - mega wines 100% of the time 3 idk t3

Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.05.03 22:28:00 - [1201] Originally by: Comm Den 2 active tank isnt overpowered try a raven vs a megathron - mega wines 100% of the time Try KIN/THERM fields on Raven and you will win
Psycros	Posted - 2010.05.04 09:04:00 - [1202] In order of importance/desirability: 1) Make the game more friendly towards non-PvP and casual players. Add a pvp flag system, eliminate any highsec missions sending players to lowsec, make theft in highsec a crime, etc. However, rewards should be considerably higher in lowsec to equal the risk. This way you're not punishing either those who just want to play a pure economic or PvE game OR the hardcore traditional userbase. A big, dynamic world like EVE is fully capable of accommodating both types - other games prove this. 2) Rebalance combat to make something other than Caldari worth flying (i.e. end missile & shield tank domination). Hybrids are worthless, projectiles aren't much better..lasers are OK unless you get neuted, then you're hosed. Missiles can't be neuted, can't be disrupted, never miss, do all damage types, easier to learn than other weapons, easier to fit, etc. Shield tank is cheaper than armor tank, more effective, more flexible. Where are the mid-slot armor items - we have low-slot SHIELD stuff, right? Drones should automatically return to the bay when they take a selectable percentage of armor damage. Even better, have the drone-oriented ships (Myrm, etc.) fully repair drones over time while their in the bay: maybe add a module that grants this ability to other ships as well, and improves it for the drone carriers. Repair Systems skill could speed this up further. 3) Massive model improvement! Ship and station models are just..well, pretty illogical for the most part. Even taking into account a couple millennium of technology and so forth, the look of most stations and ships is just bizarre (clearly the art dept. was in charge of EVE's early design). New hulls since Trinity show that CCP knows this - symmetry and more believable design are readily apparent here. I would love to see the whole game given this treatment. I truly believe that if CCP took these suggestions to heart they would be astonished by the growth that EVE would see, and the critical acclaim they have now would be nothing to what they'd soon be hearing.
Chapilan Lemartes	Posted - 2010.05.06 13:40:00 - [1203] I have some ideas about Machariel it's realy a good ship after dominion, but a beet overpowered. If you will compare it with another pirate BS, for example Nightmare you could notice that there is a great diference in signature (1km BS with 350m signature?) , speed (BS>BC?) and agility (BS>BC?). All this make Machariel realy cheat in PVP and bring disballance to the game. Imho it will be realy good to reduce it's speed and agility, or may be DPS..
Den Dugg	Posted - 2010.05.06 14:36:00 - [1204] 1 defender missiles... whats the point? 2 t2 cap moduales. 3 increase hitpoints on all ships sucks to lose a ship in 30 secs.
AnarConn	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:38:00 - [1205] Edited by: AnarConn on 07/05/2010 18:44:01 1. Dramiel is waaaay to hard to catch, make it more voulnerable, lower resist or speed would help 2. Cloak (its a lenghty discussion in progress already on this forum) 3. More viable Caldari ships for blobfights, i know they are a shield loveing race, but dam give us atleast a few ships that you can make somewhat decent in a armorgang that isnt missile based. or try and balance the whole armorblob gang. id bet if you took a statistic of any large fight youd find armortankers covering 80% of the fleet, that doesnt sound balanced to me. Oh and might be a subject for a 4th suggestion, but having caldari and gallente using a hybrid weapon system that only does 2 of the heavyliest tanked dmg in the game no matter what ammo you load isnt cool either i think. Having to chose between hybrid weapons which does thouse two or missiles which is crap (as in can be counterd in so many ways, is slow to hit targets faaaaar away)
Alica DOT	Posted - 2010.05.07 19:50:00 - [1206] OMG. should they just make all the ships the same? there is an art to fitting faction ships and knowing how to use them.I think they good like it is. if you don't like a ship... don't use it. pretty simple
Mina Sebiestar	Posted - 2010.05.15 07:54:00 - [1207] hibrids artys t2 ammo
Rugs Amarr Yakuza Corp THE R0NIN	Posted - 2010.05.18 01:14:00 - [1208] Sweet thread, wished I'd noticed it earlier, Top 3 for me: 1. Fights require no commitment, increase aggro timers on stations/gates to 2-3 minutes, alternatively make any aggro affect both side, so even if one side aggroes none can jump/dock (harsh but fair :P) 2. Cloaks on combat ships, cloaks penalties are way too lean, in my opinion no combat should be possible on a feasible level if you decide to fit a cloak. Also look at the instawarp with any ship by using MWD + Cloak combo, it's just stupid. 3. Delayed local list, as 90% of the community won't accept local being removed completely, make it delayed, maybe set timer or just like 50+ channels have. Risk vs Reward ftw... haven't seen it in a while in this game.
Alvinas Brutor tribe	Posted - 2010.05.27 07:51:00 - [1209] Originally by: Rugs Edited by: Rugs on 21/05/2010 20:53:42 3. Delayed local list, as 90% of the community won't accept local being removed completely, make it delayed, maybe set timer or just like 50+ channels have. This is also full of win. Local should be delayed unless the alliance which owns the system installs a communications array or something. Make it require Strategy Index 2 or 3 and move jammers up to 4.
Johnnyan	Posted - 2010.05.27 19:00:00 - [1210] Edited by: Johnnyan on 27/05/2010 19:04:04 Edited by: Johnnyan on 27/05/2010 19:01:42 CCP, you messed up the "loot table", in my opinion, I understand that you wanted to balance the materials gain from mission running with the one from mining but what you did makes no sense compared with the PVP experiences and in a way brakes the balance and the little bit of realism in the game. I did several missions against Guristas an Serpentis so maybe there are differences in the other missions, but still, most of the NPC ships seem to drop 100 ammo and 1 metal scrap (this part is kinda hilarious) and batteries, capacitor modules and all kind of modules that would not be in a great number on those ships while we get like 1 weapon module in 10 kills , you know, most of those ships have like 6-7-8 of those. Now, I dont expect EVE to turn into TES in space and we to get everything we see on the ships we destroy but you should keep a bit of realism in this, you seem to take another path lately. Long story short, the new loot table is kinda silly and was a change in the wrong direction. There is no order.

Renfus 0DAMN	Posted - 2010.05.27 22:32:00 - [1211] Originally by: Jovoich My one and only wish! Bring ECM in line with other EW. Remove the chance based factor. I totally agree with this.... the chance crap is not realistic and makes no sense at all... It should either work or not.. depending on the sensor strength of the target ship.. if its to damn game breaking and you can't make it realistic then remove the **** from the game...
Hezekia	Posted - 2010.05.31 03:28:00 - [1212] 1) assault ship, add a bonus either a roll bonus or another frigate skill bonus (something ratially related) 2)T2 ammo blows, fix it, i dunno how, reduce penalties or... give higher damages... i dunno 3)Rockets Blow as well, it's more effective to fit a vengeance with 3x autocannons than to fit it with rocket launchers, that just aint right!
Hereon Herinnger Gallente Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.06.03 02:58:00 - [1213] Most of my problems are with weapon systems: 1. Blasters. Make them not suck. One way would be a straight DPS increase -- make them true balls-to-the-wall guns. Alternately, indirectly buff them by buffing Gallente ships' speed. 2. Rockets. Make them not suck. At the moment, I consider slots designed for rockets to be utility slots and fit a nos/neut. 3. Autocannons. Make them not FOTM. People are fitting these things to almost every frigate in game, across bonuses. That means they're overpowered. They do the same DPS as blasters, but with twice the falloff. I'd just nerf the DPS, so that they are good at slightly longer ranges, but not as deadly as blasters when close up.
Asok TheTemp	Posted - 2010.06.03 23:05:00 - [1214] Edited by: Asok TheTemp on 03/06/2010 23:08:03 Balance required for freighters. Problem - Freighter's max warp speed .75 AU/s. Titan with nearly 2.5 times the mass has no problem warping at 1.5 AU/s. Both require Capital components and yet even the Jump Freighter is out maneuvered by a Titan. Solution 1 - Freighter's base Warp Speed increased to 1.5 AU/s to fall in line with all capital class ships. (Easiest) Solution 2 - Adjust Racial Freighter skill to include warp drive speed modifier. At lvl 5 ship's speed is 1.5 AU/s Solution 3 - Add slots to the ship. CCP can use a restriction system to prevent mods/rigs that increase capacity or even add offensive weaponry. Only mods that it can fit are defensive modules. Solution 4 - "Sit'n'Spin" SoonÖ while CCP tries to think of an asinine reason they haven't fixed the freighter or why they chose to make it the most handicapped and underdeveloped ship of EVE. FYI - Rorq warp speed is 1.2 AU/s and has just a small amount of mass more than a freighter. If freighter speed is 1.5 AU/s with Rorq having more mass than 1.2-1.4 AU/s doesn't sound unreasonable. However, a Carrier or even a Titan should have it's warp speed reduced to .75 AU/s according to mass of ships. Asok grabs a book and waits for CCP's lack of response.
Fumb Duck Awww Diddums..	Posted - 2010.06.04 19:49:00 - [1215] Originally by: Alvinas Originally by: Rugs Edited by: Rugs on 21/05/2010 20:53:42 3. Delayed local list, as 90% of the community won't accept local being removed completely, make it delayed, maybe set timer or just like 50+ channels have. This is also full of win. Local should be delayed unless the alliance which owns the system installs a communications array or something. Make it require Strategy Index 2 or 3 and move jammers up to 4. My god, are you taking too much crack or not getting enough of it, jesus, I know pretty much every sov holding alliance has no clue what to do in eve but fk man, grow a set, make it like wormholes, none of this boo hoo i need another fking structure to annoying things, simplify the game, make gates similar to wh too, where a certain mass is allowed through then reallowed after the gate can 'recharge' or something, cut the crap out of this game not add to it, and dude, get laid... you need it.
Asyrdin Harate Aura of Darkness Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.06.09 13:28:00 - [1216] 1. Crystal and Slave implant sets need to be balanced to negate the huge difference in EHP between the shield and armor tanking super caps (in particular)
Gragnor The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.06.10 14:03:00 - [1217] 1. Lag is the biggest issue facing Eve today. It really is a game breaker. Just when it appeared to have been conquered; it was unleashed again. 2. Null sec imbalance. Why go to null sec when I can make as much isk in high sec with no risk? 3. Mining has died as a profession due to the multitude of changes over time. Reinvigorate mining as a profession so that my carebear instincts can be unleashed. 4. Minmatar dread needs a massive boost. 5. Minnie artillery has been buffed but it needs a bit more damage. Minnie large autocannon tracking needs a massive boost. 6. Blasters need a buff as the webbifier changes have made them completely ineffective. 7. Stations should be destructible or subject to ruination after all services made inoperative.
Azshann	Posted - 2010.06.10 19:44:00 - [1218] Destroyers and Interdictors signature radius
Patrice Macmahon Department of Defence	Posted - 2010.06.13 15:42:00 - [1219] Edited by: Patrice Macmahon on 13/06/2010 15:43:01 Sensor Dampening: I've got a fully written and plain english proposal to (hopefully) give them enough utility to bring them in line with the other forms of EW. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1335800 The Intakis have an obligation to defend the Federation, but not to assult others on its behalf.
Dallenn Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.06.14 19:00:00 - [1220] 1) Blobbing is heavily rewarded. Bombs are not enough to disperse blobs in fleet fights. Infrastructure mechanics create fights where you need hundreds of ships in your blob. Instead Eve should force you to spread out your defenses into groups of 10-20 ships - and groups of this size should have viable targets to attack. 2) Frigates have weak DPS and survivability. They are overshadowed by cruisers and heavier ships for general PVP use. 3) Anything that has to do with PI and markets, obviously The True Knowledge of the Star Fraction

Timathai Minmatar Populist Manufacturing and Exploration	Posted - 2010.06.16 09:29:00 - [1221] Currently the resources at CCP seem to be focused in to maintaining the current client base. This is well and good, but I feel that options that reduce the repetitive nature of the game in the early growth periods, 1-6 months, would be of great benefit to all players. Broadeneing the selection of micro-careers, as well as increasing the variety of NPC missions, and the manner in which these missions are given, would go far in making the retention rate for new players higher. Currently, the repetition of the grind for isk, and the skill training time to become viable in the pvp environment due to the large number of skilled players, is causing a large loss of new accounts, meaning, those that stay longer than the 2 week trial, or at the magic 3 month marker. Change all missions in to sets of choose your own adventure style arcs. meaning, that at each completion of a mission, or failure, it opens up a new set of possible paths to take to the completion of that mission arc. make "storyline" missions actually have a linked and progressive story to tell, that may even be based around the decisions that you make up to the point you recieved the mission itself. maintaining balance of reward through these types of arcs may be difficult, but not impossible, and would add a flavor to the game that it currently lacks for newer players. Another idea that is a permutation of the first, is to make the micro-professions have random mission oppurtunities within them, based on "x" number of successful attempts at the profession, or"x" skill levels attained, or even, opening up profession centered agents that are only available to players that engage in those activities. Overall, this isnt a cure all to address the problem of new player retention, but it's a start in the conversation, and, I would love to see a real and focused conversation started by the dev team on what small changes could be made of this type, without upsetting the balance of the game. Give a man a fish, and he has one good meal. Teach a man to fish and he has a way to **** off his wife every Sunday.
Syzygium Amarr Friends Of Harassment	Posted - 2010.06.20 01:29:00 - [1222] Edited by: Syzygium on 20/06/2010 01:29:54 Originally by: Renfus Originally by: Jovoich My one and only wish! Bring ECM in line with other EW. Remove the chance based factor. I totally agree with this.... the chance crap is not realistic and makes no sense at all... It should either work or not.. depending on the sensor strength of the target ship.. if its to damn game breaking and you can't make it realistic then remove the **** from the game... qft. It would even be relatively easy: 1. Can you overheat Tracking Disruptors? No. Sensor Dampeners? No. Target Painters? NO! Why the heck can you overheat Jammers? And why the heck do they even get 20% STRENGTH from it? Every Gun or Hardener gets 15% Strength and EWAR are the "Tools" of a Recon Ship. Solution: Either make ALL EWAR overheatable or NONE. And if you do, either all of them get an 15% Effect Bonus or none. 2. Don't remove the lock from your targets when your are jammed, just gray the pictures with white noise so you can't activate modules on the targets. But this still leaves the option to use drones (which have an own locking system anyway and they are NOT jammed, there is no single reason why you shouldnt let them fight for you even while you are jammed) and more important, it lets you keep fighting once the jam fails. Currently your first need to re-lock your targets which gives the jammer just a whole more cycle of time to jam you again. Basically you are completely knocked out of the fight even if only 50% of the jams hit you because you are constantly locking and not firing. Just remove the need to re-lock your targets. It makes ECM twice as strong as it should be. [same goes for SensorDampening btw, if you have a target locked and you are dampened below its range, just blur/distort the picture and forbid module activation, but allow to keep figthing once the effect is broken]
LynxHUN Caldari HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2010.06.21 08:44:00 - [1223] Shield vs Armor gang bonus. Joining up to a gang( jumping trough gates, beacons etc ), armor bonus is instant, while shield is not. Ofc every one says, its because of the passive recharge of shields, but think about that how much time you need to get full shield on a buffer tanked hac/bs. Not to mention capitals, especially super ones, maybe with some titan support. To get full shields you have to recharge 40k-1M shields passively, what well you know, takes years ... Even with your fleet mates remote repping you takes severeal minutes and they/you have to waste cap on it.
Timathai Minmatar Populist Manufacturing and Exploration	Posted - 2010.06.21 23:00:00 - [1224] Quote: qft. It would even be relatively easy: 1. Can you overheat Tracking Disruptors? No. Sensor Dampeners? No. Target Painters? NO! Why the heck can you overheat Jammers? And why the heck do they even get 20% STRENGTH from it? Every Gun or Hardener gets 15% Strength and EWAR are the "Tools" of a Recon Ship. Solution: Either make ALL EWAR overheatable or NONE. And if you do, either all of them get an 15% Effect Bonus or none. 2. Don't remove the lock from your targets when your are jammed, just gray the pictures with white noise so you can't activate modules on the targets. But this still leaves the option to use drones (which have an own locking system anyway and they are NOT jammed, there is no single reason why you shouldnt let them fight for you even while you are jammed) and more important, it lets you keep fighting once the jam fails. Currently your first need to re-lock your targets which gives the jammer just a whole more cycle of time to jam you again. Basically you are completely knocked out of the fight even if only 50% of the jams hit you because you are constantly locking and not firing. Just remove the need to re-lock your targets. It makes ECM twice as strong as it should be. [same goes for SensorDampening btw, if you have a target locked and you are dampened below its range, just blur/distort the picture and forbid module activation, but allow to keep figthing once the effect is broken] I think that this would cause ECM to be vastly less effective, the current system requires the target to relock, adding additional time to their restarting DPS infliction. As it is chance based, unless packing a lot of ECM vs one racial type, it is by no means relaible. I've seen my ECM drones get a better success rate than racial ECM's vs a target because of the chance based parameters. I do agree with the fact that painters and damps cant be overheated though, biut in this case there should be a slight decrease in their standard effectiveness, ass the scripts already give them massive bonuses to specific roles, and tbh, the the standard results without scripts are very nice as it is. I just dont see that an adjustment to ECM is in anyway an important one, when we have so many other issues to consider, such as blobbing, lag and the like. If you want to speak to an unfair comparison, compare apples to apples; rockets , designed as the counterpart to blasters, auto cannons and pulse's, are vastly inferior to any other "small" mod out there in the weapons category. I mean, when you can take a ship, that gives bonuses to rocket use, and slap AC's, blasters, or pulses on it and get better results, it tells you something is wrong with the balance there. Give a man a fish, and he has one good meal. Teach a man to fish and he has a way to **** off his wife every Sunday.
Moatra Minmatar Demise and Vestige Opticon Alliance	Posted - 2010.06.22 06:28:00 - [1225] 1. t2 ammo 2. rockets 3. legion Blah, blah, blah.
Veaon	Posted - 2010.06.23 04:56:00 - [1226] 1. Hybrids 2. Gallente Role in current pvp metagame 3. T2 ammo (dont nerf the best, boost the worst)
Taisuke Black	Posted - 2010.06.24 20:31:00 - [1227] T2 ammo: needs smaller tracking penalties. non-CovOps cloaking: take the "targeting systems stabilizer" rig that reduces the delay for targeting after decloaking, and make it a 25% (30% for T2) reduction instead of a measly 10%(15%) honestly can't think of much else. I've been contemplating a 3rd speed mod, that could bring back speed tanking (speed w/o penalty) but have fitting requirements that make it balanced. How about it reduces your calibration to 0 so you can't use it on a rigged ship?
Saaya Illirie Caldari NPC corp tax bugs me	Posted - 2010.06.28 19:50:00 - [1228] 1. Blaster balance 2. T2 short range ammo balance (missiles currently work decently) 3. Amarr drone balance. Whereas autocannons maintain full function within falloff, and many ships rely on falloff bonuses to keep up damage, for some reason blasters just can't do this. I get the concept IRL, blasters work by firing ionized gases which dissipate as they travel, but still... so many blasterboats have falloff bonuses but blasters in practical use just don't deal good damage in falloff. Not compared to Autocannons, or even Pulse lasers. Short range T2 ammo is currently crap compared to faction short range ammo. What's a good solution to this? 1. Turn the tracking penalty into a tracking bonus. 2. They all have a rate of fire bonus listed in their info, but all at 0%. Boost this, not only are people shooting more of the crap which increases market demand, but it directly boosts damage output to more than what a navy short range can do. Amarr drones, below the sentry level (though problems exist with sentries) do not exemplify the racial competition inherent in nearly every aspect of EVE. Amarr drones have inferior speed, inferior damage, and inferior tracking when compared to their Minmatar counterpart. In short, there is no circumstance one would ever choose to use an Acolyte over a Warrior, except in a mission where Hobgoblins would provide superior damage against any opponent with an EM weakness. I won't mince words. These drones SUCK so hard I'm surprised people ever even consider using them, since Gal is so superior damage-wise even in missions where EM damage might do something. The only thing Amarr drones have going for them is if you bother turning drone models on, they look sorta cool. The solution is simple: replace the Amarr and Minmatar drone damage modifiers with each other (essentially making them mimic Cal-Gal where Gal has higher damage, Cal has higher speed and tracking, Amarr would then have higher damage, while Min has tracking and speed, which is keeping with the tradition of the races). You might even see people using Acolytes to chase down fast frigs instead of the ubiquitous Warrior 2.
Kuuijn Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.06.29 21:42:00 - [1229] 1) Blasters suck! - Blasters have terrible range compared to ACs and lasers, but only give 10-15% extra DPS. Plus with the Dominion web nerf they actually have trouble tracking targets at their optimal range! Blasters need a medium boost to tracking and a large boost to damage to make them worthwhile. 2) Railguns suck! - Railguns have the highest optimal and 2nd highest overall range. In exchange for this they do pants damage. I have no problem with them not being the highest DPS weapon system, but they need a clear advantage in another area to justify this. My suggestion would be to make them clearly the longest range gun. Another idea is to reduce the signature resolution on rails so that they can pop smaller targets at long range and score higher quality hits - thus becoming true sniper weapons. Also WHY does Spike ammo have twice the volume of Tremor when rails fire FOUR TIMES as fast as artillery?! How am I supposed to fit ammo, cap boosters and loot in my cargohold?! 3) Active tanking sucks! - Anything bigger than a 2v2 fight and buffer tanking is clearly superior. Active tanking doesn't provide enough defence, uses too much cap and too much power grid. CAn you guess what race I fly?
Kristina Kirtchner	Posted - 2010.06.30 05:43:00 - [1230] Fix desbalance in Hel bonus: Nyx: damage bonus apply on fightersbombers; Aeon: Masive tank boost on armor resistances; Wyrven: Masive tank boost on shield resistanes; Hel: bonus of remote reps identical to a carrier. With fleet combat fit, Hel can cap estable operate only two reps remotes. In other words: 1 Nyx = damage done like 8 Thanatos 1 Aeon/Wyrvern = Tank like 15 carriers; 1 Hel = remote rep like 2 nid or 1 siege carrier; Hels reps bonus need a rebalance fix acoording her supercarrier status. Reps Range? Amount of hp repaired? Caps bonus to operate rep remote modules? Nyx/Aeon/Wyvern = bonus apply on ship; Hel = bonus apply in cap m=dules.

Cole Osmedia	Posted - 2010.06.30 23:42:00 - [1231] top three list of Imbalance to game All Destroyers have same problem. I'm checking bonuses for my Catalyst destroyer and according to the information on the ship there is a -25% Rate of fire bonus for all turrets. I installed a Light Electron Blaster I which has a 2 second rate of fire and was expecting the -25% percent bonus based on that. Instead I got a penalty that came to 2.02 seconds. so It should look like this; every second is divided into 100 Centi-seconds. ( everything below a second is base 10 math ) 2 Seconds times 100 Centi-Seconds times .25 equals 1.50 seconds. If the -25% is not a bonus but suppose to be a penalty then the math the game uses is STILL wrong it should be 2.50 seconds. And if it's suppose to be a penalty it should be listed in the Info for the ship as a penalty not as a " Role Bonus " If there is anyone out there who knows EXACTLY why this is so I'd like to know. No guesses please, I'd like to here from a devoloper on this.
Zogra	Posted - 2010.07.01 06:45:00 - [1232] Edited by: Zogra on 01/07/2010 06:51:05 well since you ask: 1)T2 ammo (dont nerf the best, boost the worst) 2)Boost big projectile weapons (tracking and rate of fire on arts) (increase optimal range and decrease falloff on autocannons) 3)Reduce signature radius of destroyers otherwise there isnt a point of using one cause it will die 5x times faster than a frig and it will only deal 2x dmg more than a frigate. 4)Some T2 items got same attributes and higher requirements if you compare them with the T1 meta4 ex:check shield power relays. (keep the higher requirement like all t2 gear but boost at least 0.5% the t2 or nerf 0.5% the t1 meta4) Those are a good start i think no i forgot the blasters if you dont wannt to boost their dmg just increase their range a bit so they can compete with lazers
Lirey	Posted - 2010.07.01 12:29:00 - [1233] It was told 1b times. There were many changes in EVE combat system. Now Hybrids suck. Do something with blasters. There is very low chance to apply their paper DPS. Blasters need more DPS gain with such range disadvantage. There are so many disadvantages: cap use, fixed damage type, range, tactics (it is difficult to approach to enemy with armor rigs at tiny optimal+falloff) Railgun... no comments... P.S. There is only 1 simple solution: change Gallente ship damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% like Vindicator has. - Simple and quick - does not change Caldari ship balance (Hybrids have optimal bonus on their ships) - does not brake Gallente philosophy as face melter race
Amras Arnatuile Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.07.04 22:28:00 - [1234] This thread is hillarious. All these broken mechanics. Blasters for example has been mentioned at least 1k times in this thread alone. Yet they are still broken as hell. But hey guys we have planetary interaction. Turn in your blasterboats guys and start mining planets its less of a waste of time.
Darteis Elosia	Posted - 2010.07.07 14:21:00 - [1235] I would like to see the Destroyers get some love. They pretty much suck. And something as cool looking as the catalyst shouldn't suck!
Rhok Relztem Caldari CGMA Synergist Syndicate	Posted - 2010.07.12 19:35:00 - [1236] My top 3 needed balancing changes: Rockets - Everything about them sucks. Destroyers - Need some TLC. Currently they are all but useless except for salvaging. Hybrids - Just not up to par with other types.
Brandoe Chung Gallente Phoenix Industries Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.13 21:12:00 - [1237] So it would seem that people do agree that the gallente weapons systems have gotten the crap end of the stick they have endured so many nerfs that as a weapons system they are now pretty underpowered. As example take the lowely Deimos once a feared blaster boat and now relegated to a feared ratting boat. In the beginning it had bonuses to it's armour resists as did many T2 Gallente ships but was deemed too overpowered due to it's damage output and ability to speed tank targets. So the armour bonus was removed thus making it a weaker ship overall but it still retained it's speed which was of course necessary when your in a blaster boat which needs to close ground on a target quick. The they nerfed speed which allowed targets to put damage on the already weakened boat for a longer amount of time at the same time the webifiers were nerfed and the tracking on blasters wasn't increased. So what we're left with is a ship that probably won't make it to the target alive and if it does doesn't have a weapon system capable of ever applying it's optimal damage. This is only an example of the Deimos but the same problems rear their ugly heads on all blaster boats. I'm not saying boost them so that they are the new FOTM but at least recognize that some of the nerfs they have endured and the reasons for these nerfs are no longer even applicable in combat situations anymore. As well the falloff of these weapons should be renamed to the range at which you do laughable damage. Never quote me the odds
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.07.14 00:34:00 - [1238] It looks like Blaster boats will nod be fixed soon. CSM_CCP_Meetings_23-25_06_2010 So... as Liang Nuren said "you have enough time to cross train all the races" here Any news about Rails and Blasters?
rowdy buccaneer	Posted - 2010.07.15 03:33:00 - [1239] 1-tier 2 battleships every one wants a raven for missions because you can esially switch out missle types for diferent dmg! i think the other three mega apoc temest should have atleast 3 missle launchers and 125m3 drone bay so you can atleast have the ability to swich out the dmg type like a raven more 2-rockets and torps range sucks !!!
Makalu Zarya	Posted - 2010.07.18 18:51:00 - [1240] we don't need more carebear ships, raven needs to be able to do something useful in this game, it sucks for gangs and fleets and has relatively low usage. Torp range is fine if you know what you are doing, it's longer than blasters.

Keith Mc'Leroy Iridium Inc. Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.07.22 04:02:00 - [1241] Keep finding threads which are applicable for issues and possible are getting looked into. To avoid double post here is the link: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1355777
rowdy buccaneer	Posted - 2010.07.26 15:05:00 - [1242] we dont have to worry about the raven going out of style becides i though the scorp was the pvp ship and for torps they should be giving the scorpion hulled ships velocity and flight time for torps if the want to be fair!
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.07.27 04:00:00 - [1243] Blasters: As extremely close weapon it shoud have extremely high DPS and Tracking speed Jam drones: They are too effective P.S. Did I say something new?
Dav Varan	Posted - 2010.07.27 16:07:00 - [1244] 1) Caldari Missile Boat Bonuses ( absolute value of 1.6% per level doesn't compete with 5%-10% per level for other ship hulls ) 2) The Raptor ( needs a slot layout change imo 4.4.2. to make it competitive with other interceptors ) 3) The EOS
Timathai Minmatar Populist Manufacturing and Exploration	Posted - 2010.08.01 21:40:00 - [1245] Edited by: Timathai on 01/08/2010 21:43:11 Overall, should they actually want to fix ballance issues, the feedback for these issues needs to be changed. The CSM process seems to be a way to placate the most influential members of our community, in short, putting people who might be able to organize a large focused effort in to a position that requires them to stay silent on many of the aspects we discuss here. An open procedure, viewable by all, where it is similar to the petition sytem, and has an even more limited comment area. Have the CSM members monitor(but unable to edit) this area, compiling categories that are recurring in to more concise terms.Also, link these mechanics issues to events on the test server that players can participate in to test the issue. It is admirable that we are getting new content, but we need a dedicated focus to address the myriad of current issues in the game. And the first real step, that would make players feel as though there might be something being done by CCP, is to provide a simple, direct interface that allows players to speak on these issues, and examine what others have to say in defense, or opposition to their stand. Not another vague forum, hidden in a morass of other content. Give a man a fish, and he has one good meal. Teach a man to fish and he has a way to **** off his wife every Sunday.
Darteis Elosia Gallente Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.08.02 17:46:00 - [1246] 1. Destroyers -They need a buff, or a t2 version that is not an interdictor. Can be Logistics or Gun Platform/Missile Platform. Heavy bomber variant not able cloak. 2. Rockets -They need more damage or a twist to make them useful such as electronic warfare rockets. 3. Drakes -They need to have their tank nerfed. Cheers.
Norath84 The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.05 05:05:00 - [1247] My top 3 needed balancing changes: Rockets - need's more dmg and exp velocity Hybrids - yep, need's updating Damp's - the module and ships with bonus to them needs some love
rowdy buccaneer	Posted - 2010.08.06 04:29:00 - [1248] rockets need to be udated to keep up with small fast moving ships that use them so pilots would like using them more!!!!!!
China Chinchin	Posted - 2010.08.09 01:00:00 - [1249] Fix mining. A man can do 3 Sanctums and make 3 times as much profit as an uberminer munching on arkanor for the same amount of time. Every time you introduce something to the game (ie PI, the "insurance fix"), you hurt miners more and more. Do something nice for them. Not the macro's munching on low ends, but the guys out in 0.0 that make cap components for dreads.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.08.09 02:05:00 - [1250] Originally by: China Chinchin Fix mining. A man can do 3 Sanctums and make 3 times as much profit as an uberminer munching on arkanor for the same amount of time. Every time you introduce something to the game (ie PI, the "insurance fix"), you hurt miners more and more. Do something nice for them. Not the macro's munching on low ends, but the guys out in 0.0 that make cap components for dreads. Before mining boost macromining should be stopped. Otherwise nothing will be more profitable then mining :)

Lykouleon Trust Doesn't Rust Mostly Cookie	Posted - 2010.08.12 18:31:00 - [1251] 1. Hybrids (Blasters especially) 2. Rockets 3. Aggression/Docking Games Quote: Aedun Sole > flying with lyk is like flying a bus filled with 5 year old children
Tiger Cub Caldari The Tyranical Commonwealth Adeptus Arbites	Posted - 2010.08.16 17:48:00 - [1252] 1. Moms and Titans - Way over powered, we need T2 dreads(More gank , less tank?) and T2 carriers(more tank, less gank?) to counter them. 2. Titans - One shot, one kill anything? sounds good, but you need to make them not be able to move at all or cloak for 10 min. better effects will also be nice. 3. T3 - We want more T3 class ships! T3 Frig, T3 Battle cruiser, T3 Battle ship, Also T3 modules and ammo for t1, t2 and t3 ships! Simply saying, balance whats over powered with bringing up the other stuff. Nerf'in ****es ppl off, upgrades don't.
Dez Affinity Habitual Euthanasia Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.08.19 18:01:00 - [1253] 1. ECM Drones Pretty much the only counter is fitting a smartbomb or bringing more people. You can kill them with guns, but you have the problem of locking them which depending on your ship size can take a while, web them and still have trouble tracking them (also removing web from the guy you are trying to kill) or put your drones on them one at a time. Meanwhile you are getting jammed for somewhere in the region of 14 seconds a time. Plenty of time for even a Carrier to align and warp. It's basically a get out of jail free card against solo'ers. Scenario 1: Proteus1 tackles Proteus2 in a belt. 1vs1. Proteus2 drops 5 hornet ec- and puts them on Proteus2. Proteus2 frantically tries to lock 5 drones and dispatch them. Proteus1 achieves this and is winning the fight, Proteus2 drops 5 more hornet ec- and is fully aligned. Proteus1 gets jammed, Proteus2 warps. Scenario 2: Proteus1 tackles Sleipnir and Proteus2. 1vs2. Both drop ec- drones against the Proteus1, both warp. Scenario 3: Proteus tackles Loki, brings in 2 friends who also tackle Loki. Loki drops hornet ec- on Proteus. Proteus gets jammed but Loki dies because it has 2 more people shooting it. To conclude - you can't solo if the other person has hornet ec-. Unless you somehow use your own hornet ec- to jam them before they can put theirs on you. Sure you might get lucky one time and kill the ec- before they pull a jam off but it's luck if you do. Fact is the longer the fight goes on the more chance you are going to get jammed and if they are aligned already it's already too late. My proposal: If not flat out remove them, make it so they only remove lock not jam. 2. Drakes The best BC bar none. I mean you could say the Hurricane is quite good because its versatile and if shield fit it can go fast. The drake pulls over 1km/s with a standard fit. It has a 15km+ optimal even with faction HAMs and gets about 600 dps, which is comparable to a shield gank fit Brutix/Harb. However these two ships fit for full gank will struggle to get more than 50k EHP whereas the drake will get a 90k EHP and on top of that a 180 dps passive tank. Then you look at a Drake that's fit for HML with same fit, 500 dps 84km optimal. Although this isn't a whine against HML, it's a whine against how the Drake doesn't sacrifice anything to get extra range or damage, it has awesome EHP and just as good DPS as other BCs. Now let's look at how the average ****** fits his. Passive mainly fit, with a point sometimes. 70k+ EHP 400 DPS and an 800 DPS tank. That's just ludicrous, not only do you have to shoot through a huge buffer, but you have to overpowere the stupidly huge tank. If you bring say 1000 DPS against an 800 DPS tank you will be doing 200 DPS or there abouts and 70k EHP will take somewhere along the lines of 6 minutes. That's assumign he hasn't self destructed, killed your drones or jumped to high sec before then. My proposal: Make it so LSE's reduce shield recharge, or something similar. 3. Blasters** Web nerf hurt. Really, I'd argue for webs to be buffed because quite frankly going from 90 percent to 60 was just far too radical and didn't look at the implications. Anyway I realise that's unlikely so at least Blasters need to be looked at. On pretty much every blaster hull barring the Megathron hull (and the smaller ones with tracking bonuses), hitting your target is difficult, like really difficult. Tracking needs buffing for blasters across the board. I'd say optimal needs buffing slightly too and I do mean slightly. _______________
Lana May	Posted - 2010.08.24 11:43:00 - [1254] Not that its anything more... just voicing my opinion. 1 Shield vs armour... Shield buffers recharge, armour doesnt which the person previously has already stated.. that its hard to chew through things buffers alone aswell as thier passive tank.(be it small or large its still a pain) Also Local armour tanks cant ever compete with shield tanks 2 Blasters need more damage compared to other weopons as they have a much shorter range.. eg lasers do almost the same with greater optimal and projectiles have great falloff. 3 Lasers are overpowered... Senario 1 - Megathron fighting a ship in optimal and an ewar/logistics/bomber whatever warps in at say 40kms... theres not much you can do at that range except drone it.. senario 2 - Armageddon fighting same ship in optimal and an ewar/logistics/bomber whatever warps in at 40km... lock it up a quick change to scortch and the secondary target is hurting with not much change to overall dps. just my 2 cents
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2010.08.27 17:54:00 - [1255] 1. Tier system on t1 ships - it's outdated, especially with the various ships being 'specialised' into roles. To use the Caldari cruisers as an example: Osprey - Mining/logistics Blackbird - Ewar Caracal - Ranged combat/anti-frig Moa - Sniping/Assault There's no real reason why any of these should be the best choice due to an artificial tier system. They should all be balanced against each other with bias given to their roles instead of how high up the tier they are. Tier 1 BC's suffer HORRIBLY under this; there are very, very few reasons (if any) to ever fly a tier 1 BC over a tier 2. 2. Rockets. They suck. 3. Differentiating between 'short range' combat and 'long range' combat with the scram and web changes created a very definite four range combat system of which two are the problem. Short range = inside scram/web range (0-13km) Medium range = inside disruptor range (13-24km) Long range = outside tackle range, but under 100km (usually around 40-50km) Extreme range = the preserve of dedicated snipers (100km+) Most weapons are simply not balanced around this and most pvp fittings in particular pay heavy attention to their capacity to operate at one of the above ranges, especially with regards to the first two. My solution? Give scrams and webs a decent falloff effect and reduce the optimals. Falloff for scrams would be a speed reduction on MWD's (so at optimal+falloff they reduce MWD boost to 37% of maximum and only shut it off within optimal) and webs have higher base strength, reduced as they go into falloff. This would make combat more organic as opposed to the very digital "I am fast", "I am slow" fighting we see today and make different weapons systems (particularly hybrids) a better choice for general combat. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
General Domination	Posted - 2010.08.30 09:16:00 - [1256] Dear CCP, I think the general speed of ships need some tweaks. They are too slow and the webifier are too powerfully. It is really sad that webifier are rule number 2 of any cPvP Ship. That doesn¦t give us much variations in cPvP fittings. Webifier destroy any good combat PvP, its highly to overpowered. I would really love webifiers only for tracking support instead of reducing the speed that massive way. The webifiers are the reason for me and much friends too don¦t play cPvP.
Sentiax Alpha Minmatar Advocates of Sin	Posted - 2010.09.01 12:29:00 - [1257] I already made an individual post about this, but add a scan resolution increase for turrets on the tracking disruption script. See post: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1377434
Jaggati Khan	Posted - 2010.09.05 00:52:00 - [1258] Originally by: rowdy buccaneer rockets need to be udated to keep up with small fast moving ships that use them so pilots would like using them more!!!!!! i think rockets should have something done to them, as it stands the rifter generally rules the t1 frigate world and although i have pitched a rocket kessie up against them and won mostly the rifter owns... though i have heard good things about the punisher? as it stands i dont think id bother using a gallente t1 frig in most cases.. as a footnote although minmatar are known to be the fastest and most agile ships in game (for the most part) maybe with gallente ships you could add more speed but less agility? so faster in a straight line.. or maybe better acceleration? the vagabond owns, the diemos sux, hardly ever see them in fleets and i have never bothered to fly one (in fact its only drone boats i fit blasters too, and thats only cus i cant really use ac's)
Jaggati Khan	Posted - 2010.09.05 00:55:00 - [1259] Originally by: General Domination Dear CCP, I think the general speed of ships need some tweaks. They are too slow and the webifier are too powerfully. It is really sad that webifier are rule number 2 of any cPvP Ship. That doesn¦t give us much variations in cPvP fittings. Webifier destroy any good combat PvP, its highly to overpowered. I would really love webifiers only for tracking support instead of reducing the speed that massive way. The webifiers are the reason for me and much friends too don¦t play cPvP. webs arent that great unless you have two of them imo, web and scram is good but hell the range is really limited... i always thought adding a rig to help that would be good...
coolruningc	Posted - 2010.09.06 20:05:00 - [1260] Why does T2 only have 2 rig slots and T3 have 3 like T1 surley it 3 2 1? or evean 3 3 3?

Tsubutai The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.09.12 13:12:00 - [1261] 1) The tier system and T1 sub-BS ships in general. The tier system renders a lot of ships that have fun concepts basically un-useable in pvp because of their lack of slots and fitting room, and even some nominally top-tier ships are pretty bad because of a combination of inadequate fitting room and ill-conceived ship design (what, exactly, are the Maller and Prophecy supposed to do other than tank?) 2) Assault frigates. Even the 'good' ones are mediocre and overpriced for what they offer. A general buff/4th bonus and internal rebalancing is long overdue. 3) ECM drones and ECM in general. It's a terrible game mechanic, is disproportionately powerful against smaller ships, and the randomness is tiresome. Sekrit 4th balance issue: the Dramiel is reta***-strength OP.
Fam Trinly	Posted - 2010.09.19 11:16:00 - [1262] Edited by: Fam Trinly on 19/09/2010 11:17:46 1. Ultimate Caldari missle-boats like Drake and Tengu have no equal boats for PVE in other races. Most player starting to play for caldari or re-learn to missles and caldary ships because this is fastest and simplest way to grind missions, complexes. Rebalance of missiles or missle-boats needed. 2. E-war of all 3 kinds have same effect for enemy - harder to kill. But ECM Jamming is a superior in this moment - rebalance needed. 3. Gallente+Drone hardwirings+BS issues: True drone-boat pilots can not maximize DPS with hardwirings for drones - so they loose competition with turret or missile boats (for witch damage +5% implants exists). And there is no Drone-based marauder class ship. Learning for t2 heavy or sentry drones tooks a lot of time, like for Gunnery or Missiles skills, but no true Drone-based boats of battleships size t1 and t2 and exellence in Drones gives no profit.
Xaeltis	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:27:00 - [1263] 1. Destroyers - They aren't actually good for anti-frigate operations and are generally only useful in PvE and salvaging. The Thrasher is not too bad however. 2. Rockets - These need a significant boost. 3. Hybrids - Some balancing issues with these, but I'm not totally sure on the specifics.
Prometheus Exenthal Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:14:00 - [1264] among much of the things mentioned, there is one thing that ruins ALL the ships in a pvp situation (not only ecm/lag). the **ing "planet mode" button. move it. its the WORST location for a button. you've cleverly put a non-combat related button next to heavily used combat buttons. simply grazing that button means you are ed for 10 seconds. i've lost countless ships during chaotic fights simply because that button exists - MY LATEST VIDEO - DO IT ALONE COWARD**
Meditril	Posted - 2010.09.26 19:21:00 - [1265] Scythe Fleet Issue is much to heavy if for example compared to other faction ships. This Ship is fragile and therefore it should be at least fast and agile. Its mass should be reduced to a number between Stabber Fleet Issue and Cynabal. This would make the ship useful and competetive. Thx, Meditril
GTN Lyonesse. The Makhai	Posted - 2010.09.27 16:41:00 - [1266] http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1390583
Soldarius Independent Coalition DEM0N HUNTERS	Posted - 2010.09.28 02:05:00 - [1267] I only really have 2 things that I think need rebalancing: 1. Roflkets are supposed to be the small version of HAMs/Torps. As such, they are meant to be mounted on frigate-sized ships, and used against small to medium-sized ships. The reduced range in exchange for greater RoF is fine. But the slow explosion velocity makes them useless in PvP. For PvE they work great, especially for hi-sec ratting. But that would be because most rats don't move very fast. They are useless against players because of this seriously nerfed stat. Heck, even a BS goes faster than the 80-something exp vel. This difference between close-range high damage ammo and longer range low damage variants is not in line with the other ammo types. Boost rockets explosion velocity by about 100 m/s. 2. Dramiel. Nerf it. Double damage is fine by itself. You don't see daredevils running around all the time even though they have triple damage modifier. But the ability to move at over 6000m/s coupled with the damage bonus is ridiculously out of balance. It takes very little training to get into one, so long as you have the cash, which is easy enough. Ex: Flying in nul-sec in a properly fit passive tanked drake, I got annihilated by 2 Dramiels inside of 30 seconds. Admittedly, they had 2 Guristas BS helping. But BS only had me at a steady 2/3 tank. Once the Drams opened up, I never even saw peak recharge. 10 seconds for shields, about 8 seconds for armor, 5 seconds for hull, and pop. Don't bother shooting at them with combat drones. They just fly in line and shoot the drones. I'm not saying that you can't fit to kill Drams. But if you are flying a shield-tanked ship (anything Caldari), you are screwed because you have to sacrifice tank for double webs and scrams, or ECM. No single ship or mod should be able to change the face of game-play throughout eve. If it does, it is unbalanced. "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
Natasha Nikolaev	Posted - 2010.09.28 02:54:00 - [1268] Edited by: Natasha Nikolaev on 28/09/2010 02:57:15 Null needs to be balanced with scorch and barrage. currently "effective range" (opti + falloff) is boosted by 37.5% by scorch, 40% by barrage and 25% by null. Should be fairly obvious this isn't balanced. Null needs to be made +37.5%/+37.5%. oh and fix the f'ing deimos. How long ago was it that you last minute dropped your proposed changes and then never touched it again?
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2010.09.29 21:09:00 - [1269] It would be nice to hear if they are fixing hybrids in the near future.
Kogh Ayon	Posted - 2010.09.29 22:11:00 - [1270] 0.Low-sec should have better goals. 1.Medium Railgun Turrets/Platforms; Medium Blaster Ships 2.Close-range T2 ammo. 3.Jita and Caldari are too crowd. Don't have to change atm: Anything about missile and projectile weapons, EWs, Drones Cloacker Local Shield/Armor Not About the Game: Tidy up or repost this Thread Please!

Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.09.30 15:23:00 - [1271] Dreads: Tracking. Dreads have hard time hitting other CAPITALS because they move and dreads have virtually no tracking. Buff their HP and unnerf their tracking instead of taking the nerf bat to moms. Then at least we'll see varying ships on the field instead of mom blobs. Hybrids: Rework please. Lasers have the best tracking to make up for their cap useage. Hybrids use cap as well. By that extension they should have the second best tracking. Instead they have the WORST. Also some of the worst damage at range and the worst range at damage. Increase blaster range. Increase rail damage. Increase tracking overall. Rockets: More damage, more velocity, less explosion radius. Make them good against frigates ffs. Angel ships: Nerf, no way around it. Remove/reduce drone bays on the cynabal and the dramiel. Increase mass slightly(and I do mean slightly). Slightly reduce velocity. Leave Mach as is. Worm: Buff please. It pales in comparison to all other faction ships. Slow, rocket based, active shield tank = fail. Make it faster, fix rockets, and increase its fitting stats and/or capacitor. Missiles: Increase velocity and reduce flight time to compensate on all missiles. Increase cruise missile velocity MAJORLY to make them useful. Right now they're useless in PvP.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente Wormhole XXXtreme	Posted - 2010.10.01 00:03:00 - [1272] 1. Blasters. Need. Love. I didn't realise how much I relied on webs until they were nerfed. Now you're at a disadvantage against practically anything as soon as you bolt them onto your spaceship. 2. Armour. Gallente ships have very short effective weapon ranges, yet we get our speed nerfed every time we buff our HP. 3. There is no 3.
Unbendable McRib	Posted - 2010.10.01 13:52:00 - [1273] rebalancing hybrid weapons and amunition! comparable to caldari heavy-, cruise missiles and torpedos! its unjust when a Drake makes the same dps as an Megathron with t1 turrets! or an Golem makes almost twice dps as an Kronos! in the most Mission arreas you find many drakes, Ravens and golems why?? help Gallente Pilots to have more fun! and to see more diffrent ship types in space thx
Alicia Ryan	Posted - 2010.10.04 17:15:00 - [1274] 1. Lag 2. High Sec Ganking (1Bs to kill a Tengu, 3Bs to kill a faction tanked bs is just to easy) 3. Blasters (they need a change)
Failgun Owner	Posted - 2010.10.06 04:39:00 - [1275] 1) RAILS 2) BLASTERS 3) ECM DRONES
Aglais Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.11 18:24:00 - [1276] 1) Caldari are the designated PvE race. Change that please. No. I don't care if ECM ships count in PvP, I don't fly ECM ships. I've tried the Moa, but apparently, for every Caldari gunboat there's a Gallente one that does it better. Then you have the Drake or gtfo thing going on. For a Caldari PvPer you have very few options. Drake, ECM, crosstrain. Otherwise you're bottom of the barrel. Oh, and the Cerberus is kinda weak. Kinda very weak. And it's niche is **ing **ed, as someone once put it, "hurling missiles at someone from over the horizon". If it had more tank on it I can almost guarantee that it'd be the Caldari short range HAC as it'd be able to fit HAMs and devestate things, and yet remain unique from the Sacrilege because the Cerberus should have defensive bonuses that relate to passive tanking. 2) Don't nerf Angel ships; buff the other faction ships. Honestly, they're **ing expensive. Cynabals go for over 200mil. They're WORTH that much. Do NOT nerf angels, BUFF THE OTHER FACTION SHIPS. Gila's pretty good as is, though it'd be nice if it got a bit more resists than the vanilla 5% per level, maybe 7.5%. Remember. This is a faction ship. They are expensive. You should get what you pay for. There is absolutely no reason for you to ever spend 260 million ISK on a gold plated turd. If I'm spending 260 million ISK on a SINGLE cruiser hull it'd better be damn good. 3) Boost speed on Caldari gunboats. My Moa is amazing on defense and somewhat average on offense for a T1 ship. However it fails horribly in the speed arena and as such even though it's a competent ship, it fails to kill things because it does not reach the target in time before the rest of the fleet does. Hell, make Gallente ships a bit faster too as they suffer the same problem. 4) Caldari are second only to Minmatar in terms of ship ugliness. Mostly due to the Raven. I do not like the fact that the Raven looks like... Well, an obese raven with a malformed pair of wings. It doesn't look like a battleship. It looks stupid. Please don't mess with the Moa too much though; it's 'cool ugly' if that's possible.
Zogra	Posted - 2010.10.12 05:02:00 - [1277] Originally by: Kai Yuen Dreads: Tracking. Dreads have hard time hitting other CAPITALS because they move and dreads have virtually no tracking. Buff their HP and unnerf their tracking instead of taking the nerf bat to moms. Then at least we'll see varying ships on the field instead of mom blobs. Hybrids: Rework please. Lasers have the best tracking to make up for their cap useage. Hybrids use cap as well. By that extension they should have the second best tracking. Instead they have the WORST. Also some of the worst damage at range and the worst range at damage. Increase blaster range. Increase rail damage. Increase tracking overall. Rockets: More damage, more velocity, less explosion radius. Make them good against frigates ffs. Angel ships: Nerf, no way around it. Remove/reduce drone bays on the cynabal and the dramiel. Increase mass slightly(and I do mean slightly). Slightly reduce velocity. Leave Mach as is. Worm: Buff please. It pales in comparison to all other faction ships. Slow, rocket based, active shield tank = fail. Make it faster, fix rockets, and increase its fitting stats and/or capacitor. Missiles: Increase velocity and reduce flight time to compensate on all missiles. Increase cruise missile velocity MAJORLY to make them useful. Right now they're useless in PvP. Sorry but i think that some of your ideas are not balacing the game instead its making caldari OP normally i should like this since i am one but i know good that unbalance in a game ends up with destroying it so i cant fully agree with your ideas but i agree that some rly small and soft tweaks could be made carefully. About blaster keep in mind its the higher dps weapon and about rail its the best sniper weapon If you want my opinion they are just fine with proper gunnery skills and implants. Missiles are fine the dps they produce is average but dps is steady and they never miss and they dont have minimum range + they got good max range. If you use a cruise missile on a frigate its like trying to hit a frigate with a large weapon, large weapon wont hit at all if frigate got some speed and pilot is not moving straight to the BS even in high range. Getting a full missile clone seems to work rly nice for any smaller than cruise size missiles and remember that cruise missiles are pve missiles and torpedos are more than fine for pvp. If you want my opinion about a good change would be about t2 ammo. Add more dmg types on each faction t2 ammo so we can use t2 in pve and have more options at pvp
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2010.10.13 07:28:00 - [1278] Originally by: Aglais ... Caldari is supposed to be a missle/sniper hybrid race, they would be great snipers if rails didn't suck (or even with blasters with more range, no and no tracking bonuses, if blasters didn't suck either). As for their speed, caldari doesnt have any penalty to that from their tank, so it should be fine, although i don't know the moa specificly. Confirming drake or gtfo anyways...
Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.10.13 18:00:00 - [1279] Originally by: Zogra Sorry but i think that some of your ideas are not balacing the game instead its making caldari OP normally i should like this since i am one but i know good that unbalance in a game ends up with destroying it so i cant fully agree with your ideas but i agree that some rly small and soft tweaks could be made carefully. About blaster keep in mind its the higher dps weapon and about rail its the best sniper weapon If you want my opinion they are just fine with proper gunnery skills and implants. Missiles are fine the dps they produce is average but dps is steady and they never miss and they dont have minimum range + they got good max range. If you use a cruise missile on a frigate its like trying to hit a frigate with a large weapon, large weapon wont hit at all if frigate got some speed and pilot is not moving straight to the BS even in high range. Getting a full missile clone seems to work rly nice for any smaller than cruise size missiles and remember that cruise missiles are pve missiles and torpedos are more than fine for pvp. If you want my opinion about a good change would be about t2 ammo. Add more dmg types on each faction t2 ammo so we can use t2 in pve and have more options at pvp Wrong on virtually every account. Tweaking missiles won't even affect Caldari DPS. It will only put cruise missiles on the map for PvP. All missile tweaks just cut down on delay between firing and seeing damage applied. Cruise missiles are PvE Missiles? Torps are for PvP? Torps are extremely short range weapons as far as battleships go. What would you possibly use for long range BS engagements as Caldari? Please. How many Minmatar weapons are purely for PvE? Very weak, very biased argument. Caldari OP? The only worth while Caldari ship in 0.0 is the Drake right now. There's a reason you only see Drakes. Everything else blows. Just bring the other ships and weapons up to speed. Blasters is also completely wrong. Blasters are a close range weapon put on some of the slowest ships in the game. They need some major work. Increasing range would go a long ways towards correcting them. Rails are the WORST sniping weapons in the game because of their absolutely pitiful alpha, to say nothing of their terrible tracking. Artillery is FAR superior. If anything is OP it's projectiles. Changing T2 ammo won't even come close to repairing hybrids. They have to be reworked like projectiles were to bring them up to speed. Projectiles got a full makeover, why should hybrids be left out?
Salvia Olima The All-Seeing Eye Blade.	Posted - 2010.10.16 13:56:00 - [1280] 1. Please give 50m3 dronebay and a minor drone bonus to the Legion, so it can field two waves of light drones or one wave of EC-600s, this will improve its survivability and range of damage. 2. Please give a short shelf life to R64 and a longer shelf life to R32 moon minerals, it will liberate the T2 production.

Sean Faust Gallente Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2010.10.22 19:48:00 - [1281] 1. Hybrid turrets. Railguns are just absolutely horrible, and blasters just don't mesh well with ships that need to be armor tanked to have any measure of survivability, thus killing their ability to keep point-blank-range on the target. Giving the one weapon that needs to be at point blank range to the two races that have the slowest ships in-game really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 2. Electronic attack ships. They're too slow to be able to hang with the T2 frigate gangs they're supposed to go along with, and their targeting range is too low. What use is the optimal range bonus on the Kitsune when it only has a 45km base targeting range? 3. The state of the Legion compared to other T3 ships.
Rellana DAB Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.25 12:05:00 - [1282] 1: System Blockade units. Right now there too hard to take down boefore they come online without a massive gang in the system,so I propose that until they come online they don't get the 50% resistances across the board,to make it easier to defend a system if a SBU gets deployed outside an alliance's primetime..
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2010.10.29 19:28:00 - [1283] Edited by: Exploited Engineer on 29/10/2010 19:30:44 Originally by: Aglais 1) Caldari are the designated PvE race. Change that please. No. I don't care if ECM ships count in PvP, I don't fly ECM ships. I've tried the Moa, but apparently, for every Caldari gunboat there's a Gallente one that does it better. This. Caldari need a mostly-gun frigate and a mostly-gun cruiser. Replace one missile slot on the Merlin with a turret slot. Same for the Moa. (Oh, and buff hybrids.)
Arbiter Reformed Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.11.02 20:23:00 - [1284] commandships, imo fleet commands should give better boni than t3 and field cs need alot of love, especially the nh which just needs more grid and arguably a medslot. 2 sov and blobs, this was completely changed recently but to little effect the new system needs to be built on. 3 faction mwd and od's giving more speed, it really needs to happen
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.11.06 17:44:00 - [1285] 1. Non Caldari EWAR. As it stands now you would be laughed at if you use any Ewar platform other than a Falcon/Rook/Lachesis(only if you shield tank it and never put a RSD on it). Buff the EWAR bonuses on Non Caldari ewar platforms. This issue has been going on since Trinity. 2. SOV war. CCP wanted small gangs to have an influence in sov disputes, it seems that particular feature was cut from the Dominion release due to time constraints. Look into putting it in, otherwise it will continue to be supercap blobs vs AFK/failcascade alliances online, to see any movement on the sov maps. 3. Supercaps. CCP wants balance to be a "rock, paper, scisors" type of thing. Instead we get supercaps as dynamite, which blows up rock, paper, and scisors.
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2010.11.10 08:18:00 - [1286] the supercaps thing hasnt changed a lack of low sec and high sec to 00 wh leaves lots of empty space
Mauricius	Posted - 2010.11.15 11:41:00 - [1287] 1 tier 2 battlecruisers 2 gallente ships in 20+ fights (both rails, blasters, grid, and damps) 3 ECM both drones and falcons (or any jamming ships for that matter)
Liucinda Minmatar Expiation n Damnation	Posted - 2010.11.16 08:45:00 - [1288] 1- Drake NERF - Ferox got the resist bonus, so put the drake with an active shield bonus, that should be enought to nerf it, it totaly unbalance the game (there is 10x more Drake pilot that any other ship in pvp now) 2- Gallente UP - give them love!! the are armor tanker, so they are slow, but the blaster can't shoot after 20km, there is a problem.... 3- Tech 2 Ammo - they are likely useless.
Tecknoth Caldari AdAstra. Not Found.	Posted - 2010.11.16 09:32:00 - [1289] Originally by: Liucinda 1- Drake NERF - Ferox got the resist bonus, so put the drake with an active shield bonus, that should be enought to nerf it, it totaly unbalance the game (there is 10x more Drake pilot that any other ship in pvp now) 2- Gallente UP - give them love!! the are armor tanker, so they are slow, but the blaster can't shoot after 20km, there is a problem.... 3- Tech 2 Ammo - they are likely useless. +1 agree _________________ Tecknoth iNsIdE Ad Astra
Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.11.16 19:14:00 - [1290] Originally by: Tecknoth Originally by: Liucinda 1- Drake NERF - Ferox got the resist bonus, so put the drake with an active shield bonus, that should be enought to nerf it, it totaly unbalance the game (there is 10x more Drake pilot that any other ship in pvp now) 2- Gallente UP - give them love!! the are armor tanker, so they are slow, but the blaster can't shoot after 20km, there is a problem.... 3- Tech 2 Ammo - they are likely useless. +1 agree -1 disagree. Don't touch the drake. It's the only worth while Caldari PvP ship. This isn't "anti-caldari online" anymore than its "minmatar online" or "amarr online". Buff hybrids and t2 ammo, leave the drake alone.

WorkingOnIt	Posted - 2010.11.17 19:08:00 - [1291] Originally by: Aglais 1) 2) Don't nerf Angel ships; buff the other faction ships. Honestly, they're ****ing expensive. Cynabals go for over 200mil. They're WORTH that much. Do NOT nerf angels, BUFF THE OTHER FACTION SHIPS. Gila's pretty good as is, though it'd be nice if it got a bit more resists than the vanilla 5% per level, maybe 7.5%. Remember. This is a faction ship. They are expensive. You should get what you pay for. There is absolutely no reason for you to ever spend 260 million ISK on a gold plated turd. If I'm spending 260 million ISK on a SINGLE cruiser hull it'd better be damn good. I agree with this +10 People leave them ships alone, there expensive for a reason.. If you yell nerf its only beacuse you cant afford to fly them, play harder.. Agreed about the Gila it needs better resists or another mid slot with a touch more cpu..
Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.11.17 23:00:00 - [1292] Originally by: WorkingOnIt Originally by: Aglais 1) 2) Don't nerf Angel ships; buff the other faction ships. Honestly, they're ****ing expensive. Cynabals go for over 200mil. They're WORTH that much. Do NOT nerf angels, BUFF THE OTHER FACTION SHIPS. Gila's pretty good as is, though it'd be nice if it got a bit more resists than the vanilla 5% per level, maybe 7.5%. Remember. This is a faction ship. They are expensive. You should get what you pay for. There is absolutely no reason for you to ever spend 260 million ISK on a gold plated turd. If I'm spending 260 million ISK on a SINGLE cruiser hull it'd better be damn good. I agree with this +10 People leave them ships alone, there expensive for a reason.. If you yell nerf its only beacuse you cant afford to fly them, play harder.. Agreed about the Gila it needs better resists or another mid slot with a touch more cpu.. No good. What makes Angel good is something you can't give to every other faction ship, speed and align time. You can't give that to every other faction ship and make it the same, yet speed is the ultimate equalizer. It's quite literally the difference between life and death. They can't track you. They can't catch you. They can't run from you. Given that there's no other alternative to equalize the speed imbalance, nerfing is the only viable option. You don't want EVERY faction ship to be Angel, do you? I don't want them nerfed with a bat, but at least down from the overly dominant fotm ships they are now.
Kassimila	Posted - 2010.11.18 08:48:00 - [1293] 1. Carriers - Triage mode should be able to Repair SIEGED Dreads. This would get both Carriers and Dreads back into the capital fight. Instead of this Super Carrier/Titan blob nonsense. 2. Hybrids, Did I mention they're terrible? Remove the CAP need or something, projectiles smoke them in both range and effectiveness. More range on blasters, more tracking and damage on rails. 3. Fighters - The balance here is laughable. We all know all fighters do the same DPS...accept...if you actually compare the stats, you'll see that minimitar fighters have the best tracking, and the best speed. So if they all do the same DPS, why use anything else? Please do the following Increase the DPS on all fighters. Give them all the same tracking, or at LEAST .125 or higher. They should all do 2500m/sec, only difference should be damage type.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.19 07:54:00 - [1294] Shields and the way there bonus's apply. They should apply like armor bonus's and not give you the a total hp buff without increase the current amount. because when a leviathan jumps into the same system you get + shields hp but your shields stay the same. While with armor it is applied to hp and to total. So either make them both apply to hp and total or just total. This change would ungimp ships with a large shield tanks that 'lose' a large chunk of their tank the minute they jump or boosts get reapplied
Br41n Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2010.11.21 10:48:00 - [1295] 1) Blasters they are hardly usable 2) Battleships, since the doomsday change they are lacking usability (hence the BC blobs) 3) Supercarriers, only the nyx and aeon are way better than the wyvern and hel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight? Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DarkAegix	Posted - 2010.11.30 09:18:00 - [1296] 1. Buff hybrids, they're laughable right now 2. Nerf Minmatar, they've been FOTM for around a year and are the only race you see on killboards. 3. Nerf Dramiels. Is it even possible to kill one, as they can just escape even when dual-webbed?
Sochinskii	Posted - 2010.12.05 20:24:00 - [1297] Nerf rifter/boost other frigates 149 dps from a pvp rifter with its speed, tracking, 3 med slots is way to much. Closest usable punisher, which I managed to assemble is 110 dps and +1,1 k ehp over rifter. But it lacks a web, has 2 times lower tracking, 20% less speed, 1,6 sec longer align time. Comparison was done with T2 close range ammo
Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2010.12.07 04:46:00 - [1298] Long-range high-damage T2 ammo (Javelin, Quake, Gleam) is still pretty much useless after the buff, compared to faction ammo (crap range and tracking, and still equal or lower damage). At least increase the damage...
Joss56	Posted - 2010.12.15 01:10:00 - [1299] Rails: Buff dps -tracking - less cap Blasters: re invent another close range weapon that we can use on gallente ships (BS user) other than autos "s'il vous plait" or make blasters usefull (if you really test what you build you guys should stop drinking at work those were autos, not blasters) Gall ships: Dominix-Mega-Hype bonus and ability to your 200M battleship (cheap that one)to survive against 1/2/3 cruisers gang -if you need 80 battleships to take down a single capital, then you shouls need at least 10 cruisers or 5bc's to take down a single battleship. Atm with an apropriate fit, a single faction cruiser can deal with any t1 battleship with no fear and turn it in to dust in just a few seconds. wy?-because!
StonedAGAIN	Posted - 2010.12.15 13:23:00 - [1300] Yeah i defi agree that gallente rail/blasters need to b sorted, with rails the damage is crap and with blaster you need a warp in so ur right on top of someone to actually use them, add to the fact drones are too easily killed makes gallente not as fun to fly as other races gallente shud get an extra strength bonus to drones a long with some extra range on blasters and damage for rails....

StonedAGAIN	Posted - 2010.12.15 13:30:00 - [1301] Also there is really only 1 ship i can think of completetly needs a nerf or on the other hand the other 3 races need a boost to match is the drake. The drake outways all its counterparts in far to many ways... Battleships should live up to there name more aswell. A BS can b taken down with 2 - 3 assault frigs why is that so easily done.... the machariel is about the only battleship that truly lives up to the name battleship...
elitatwo	Posted - 2010.12.18 16:48:00 - [1302] No flaming me, before reading my thoughts, hear me out first. I was taking a close look at out well known Tier 1 battleships and there still is somewhat way unbalanced here. But first let us take a look at the shipclass itself: The name of the shipclass contains the purpose of it and is taking part in all places of New Eden: "battle" And here are our four participants: For the famous Amarr, the Apocalype; The Gallente one, the Dominix; The Minmatar ship, the Typhoon; and last and least the Caldari one, the Scorpion. Now everybody will think, what a duche I am, but lets have a look at the ship's stats and capabilities first. All four ships have in common thier Tier, their shipclass, their means to do their business in the battlefield, their race, which I don't have to comment at all; their own ship models of course. BUT what differs them? Now lets have a look at their firepower, which would be "balanced" to their shipclass. Looking at the Apocalypse we have a decent laser boat- nothing to complain here. The dominix is our well known mini carrier with additional six bonused turret slots to assist them- again nothing to complain about. The Typhoon has had a decent buff in firepower and slot layout- so again nothing (more) to complain about. But wait! Even after getting a new ship model recently and being the coolest looking ship of their class, the Scorpion which is often seen in every fleet combat, was treated somewhere out of place, wasn't she? With her six high slots she can either wear four launchers and or four guns/turrets and none of them gets a bonus to be in the line with their three counterparts. What went wrong here? While most of you hope to get away as a Domi, Apoc or Phoon is comming close to you and starts scrambling you, noone will really think of the Scorpion as a real thread to them, even if they may get jammed for once or twice before any ship blows the Scorpion to space-dust. I have no clue, what you were thinking and still every fleet commander loves their ecm boats in their fleets, no Scorpion pilot will use this ship on a solo op. I will trade all the four (mostly utterly useless) turret hardpoints for two additional launcher hardpoints with a 5% rof bonus to them to buff the Scorpion in the line with their counterparts and make the Scorpion a scary Scorpion and not yet another ecm boat in battleship size with pratically no firepower at all or too less to be counted as a thread. I would keep the current slot loadout as they are: 4x low 8x med 6x high (all six of them launcher hardpoints + 5% rof per level) ecm special ability stays as is.
Leaha Grindstone	Posted - 2010.12.21 05:52:00 - [1303] After flying the Legion, and looking at the other racial T3 cruisers, there are a few critical tweaks I believe are necessary to make the T3 ships more useful, attractive to PVP, and flexible for a range of tactics. repping. Either change the rep amount bonus out for range, or keep the bonus and give a range bonus of SOME kind. as it stands, the amount bonus for either shield or armor is great, and makes the fleet/small gang use enticing, but the 6km (medium) or 8.4km (large) repping range makes it nearly useless unless everyone balls up on the logistics. In a black ops config, this would be a real tactical twist you don't really see atm with black ops. covert config. For the love of gawd, allow a covert cyno to be fitted with the covert reconfig sub system. Legion needs a small tweak to grid. same for loki Tengu is the king atm, and far outstrips the other three in tank and flexibility. IF you blackops fit the legion, you have crappy dps. not even acceptable dps, crappy dps. The covert subsystem is the same group as the damage subsystem. This is fine, but allow it to then be useful in ewar, logi (see range bonus), tackle, or some other aspect of fleet tactics. I'm sure that the same things appear in the other racial T3's.
Insane Randomness	Posted - 2010.12.24 07:25:00 - [1304] 1)Drones. Everything about them needs to be revisited. The lack of firepower, the management, ECM drones, the ships that house them, etc. etc. etc. 2)Blasters. Cause they suck... 3)Missions. Better idea, instead of move L4's to low sec, make them less profitable, to move more peeps to L5's in losec, maybe make those easier...
Karn Velora	Posted - 2010.12.26 17:16:00 - [1305] Originally by: CCP Nozh Hi, Balancing is an ongoing process; there will always room for improvement. This pursuit for maximized fairness and stability will always be disputed, one way or another. Everyone has an opinion; this is where I want you to voice them in a very simple manner. Create a Top 3 list of what you believe is unbalanced. Based on how many people are unsatisfied with a given subject weÆll create separate threads (limited amount) where we analyze the problem and try to figure out a solution. With Apocrypha changes authored and checked in IÆve got some breathing room. During this time IÆm going to be more active on the forums and follow this thread through. Please note this is not a discussion thread. 1) Security System. I'm assuming high sec is supposed to be safer than null sec, and this is barely the case. High sec is effectively protecting bubblegum pirates, but does little to nothing to protect an industrialist. The entire system is unbalanced, supporting gankings and little more. It needs to be redesigned and replaced. 2) T1 < T2 < T3. Tech 2 always was ridiculous in how it completely outclassed everything T1, making T2 necessary, not optional, making it much harder to get into the game for a new player. The saving grace was that at least there were no T2 battleships. Of course, the T2 battleships are now fact, as are capital ships which too are way to cheap and overpowered according to several 0.0 alliances. Most alliances don't even accept pilots that can't field a cap. Just to put icing on the cake, the strategic cruisers are added, again adding a whole new level of wtfpwn to the game, that just isn't needed, or even wanted. I've seen one strat-cruiser in action, ever, and it just wtfpwn-ganked my BC. Fun. I've argued this since the release of T2 gear and I'm still going at it: T2 gear needs a nerf. T3 gear needs a nerf. Caps need a nerf. And for god's sake, please, don't add anything T4! Seriously. No T4. Ever. Please. Don't even think about it. 3) Everything besides 1 and 2 are mere details. Deal with the core issues first. Then work on the details.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2011.01.04 14:30:00 - [1306] 1> Remove the tier system and balance ships based on roles 2> Fix hybrids to bring them into line with the other turrets 3> Balance the cost of armor rigs in comparison to sheild rigs
Terazul Gallente	Posted - 2011.01.07 19:01:00 - [1307] 1. Hybrids are sub-par weapon systems next to everything else. The fact that a hyperion fitted with LASERS does more DPS than a hyperion fitted with hybrids of either type is just terribly sad. 2. I agree with the guy above me, the difference between T2 and T1 (and to a lesser extent, T3 and T2) is just far too large. If you're serious about dispelling the idea that it's just too late for a newbie to get into the game, you have to make it ACTUAL FACT. Right now it is indisputably true that a new player will get trashed attempting any form of confrontational PvP simply because T2 ships are so much better (hence the obscene requirements from many corps of 10m SP or more). 3. Also as mentioned before, the balance between T3 ships is pretty poor. This is at least partially because of point #1 for the Proteus, but the Loki and Legion have different problems in keeping up with the Tengu.
kajumar	Posted - 2011.01.08 05:41:00 - [1308] i have playing amarr and there is a few problems with some of there ships and items. 1. the close ranged tech II crystals half you tracking and give the same damage boost as a faction crystal 2. improve the covert legion as all the other tech III ships can fits to tank and deal enough damage to be effective, they all have 6 slots in the field of there respective tank though the shield have tankers have 7 the legion only gets 5 slots and deals our very low amounts of dps when compared to the other 3. 3. there also appears to be a glitch with pulse lasers as when a hostile frig gets with in 7 km they are impossible to hit irrespective of there rad/sec velocity. if you think either of thise are valide points for the first two plz let me know
Acac Sunflyier	Posted - 2011.01.09 05:35:00 - [1309] Rail Guns need an update. As does Blasters for that matter.
Ecky X The Aforementioned	Posted - 2011.01.11 00:33:00 - [1310] Minmatar may be in good shape right now, but their navy guns are out of line with other races'. There are several benefits to using navy tachs or rails, but navy ACs and artillery have only CPU over their T2 counterparts. Give them a tracking or clip size buff maybe.

Joe Kerrdogg	Posted - 2011.01.17 05:24:00 - [1311] My number one, two, and three concearn is theft. Most people i know who play eve want to build their own empire. However players are not provided sufficient interface tools by ccp to protect themselves from even the most rudimentary scam. With one missed visual clue i lost 1 bil isk. I should have had the availability to set warning popups in case i missed the small warning that i had misread the price. Additionally, color coding the prices that are listed in the market would be useful as well. Theft is a problem in eve and not to be confused with can-flippin or ganking. In the affor mentioned cases I am given the opportunity to decide wether or not to take action vs those who did me wrong. In other words, I have recourse. But, should a ranking corp mate wipe out the corps assets or, as in my case, I get scammed by someone hopeing i would mis-read the price as i did, I find I have no way to extract any form of justice. The current form of eve encourages this style of risk-free and morally bankrupt theft. I was referred to this website from the rubber-stamped, suck it up, cant do anything, denial of my petition. So here's a can of worms. Hope you can fix it before it gets opened. :)
Strider Alpha	Posted - 2011.01.18 05:31:00 - [1312] Edited by: Strider Alpha on 18/01/2011 05:33:29 Blasters Drones GALLENTE Please give this thread your support http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1450329
Korg Hammer	Posted - 2011.01.19 10:17:00 - [1313] Originally by: Joe Kerrdogg My number one, two, and three concearn is theft. Most people i know who play eve want to build their own empire. However players are not provided sufficient interface tools by ccp to protect themselves from even the most rudimentary scam. With one missed visual clue i lost 1 bil isk. I should have had the availability to set warning popups in case i missed the small warning that i had misread the price. Additionally, color coding the prices that are listed in the market would be useful as well. Theft is a problem in eve and not to be confused with can-flippin or ganking. In the affor mentioned cases I am given the opportunity to decide wether or not to take action vs those who did me wrong. In other words, I have recourse. But, should a ranking corp mate wipe out the corps assets or, as in my case, I get scammed by someone hopeing i would mis-read the price as i did, I find I have no way to extract any form of justice. The current form of eve encourages this style of risk-free and morally bankrupt theft. I was referred to this website from the rubber-stamped, suck it up, cant do anything, denial of my petition. So here's a can of worms. Hope you can fix it before it gets opened. :) Post it in crime and punishment, people care there
Caltinor	Posted - 2011.01.20 02:34:00 - [1314] repair the PI outputs. i noticed that the resources that i was able to extract were significantly lower than my outputs on the previous patch. this is high and low security PI observations. don't, however, change the PI interface. i love the new interface, it is much easier to manipulate and alter your PI. one suggestion might be the power requirements. on my old setup i could install 12 extractors on a planet as where now i can only get 9. this i'm sure affects the resource output but there is nothing i can do to make it more efficient.
Dkamanus	Posted - 2011.01.20 14:51:00 - [1315] Hybrids - Make them more useful. I always wanted to fly a Rokh, but they aren't that effective if you consider their bonuses for railguns. Missiles - Make em more viable for PvP. You could double their flight velocity while halving their flight time. Caldari Ships - Some balancing would be good.
Anile8er Five Fat Soldiers	Posted - 2011.01.26 01:25:00 - [1316] Capital combat/ dread use/ supercapitals I created a post with some ideas: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1454245 ^ would love feedback and insights
A'arna Atraben	Posted - 2011.01.26 17:07:00 - [1317] Originally by: Caltinor repair the PI outputs. i noticed that the resources that i was able to extract were significantly lower than my outputs on the previous patch. this is high and low security PI observations. don't, however, change the PI interface. i love the new interface, it is much easier to manipulate and alter your PI. one suggestion might be the power requirements. on my old setup i could install 12 extractors on a planet as where now i can only get 9. this i'm sure affects the resource output but there is nothing i can do to make it more efficient. What he said. We've been told that the best way to mine planets is to reach an equilibrium with the resource replenishment. But nobody can say what program length is required for that equilibrium, and nobody ever could, because the resource hotspots move. Sometimes they don't move, sometimes they move further than an extractor head can reach. You can't find an equilibrium that way. Particularly when, as we've also been told, the amount of resources available to you is dependent on how much is extracted by other players. But the worst thing about outputs at the moment is that the projected output figures are entirely useless. Installing the extraction program and reopening the program window shows the actual amounts, which always differ from the projected amounts. Sometimes they're slightly higher, but more often they're lower, and I've seen figures one-eighth of the projected amounts. Unpredictable outputs make for wildly inefficient production lines. And I totally agree about the powergrid usage for ECUs. Far too high, especially when the higher level command centre upgrades give so little powergrid benefit. Have to disagree about the interface though. Some bits are good, especially the upgradeable command centres. But it used to be a clickfest, and now it's a click-and-drag fest. Setting up my extractors takes me more time than it used to. It's more work, because every time I install a new extraction program I have to find the optimal positions for my extractor heads again. I don't play eve so I can do PI - I do PI so I can play eve. Yes, it can be a good cash flow for someone relatively new to the game. But the reduced efficiency, wild unpredictability and high level of maintenance are quite a turn-off, and quite a distraction from the main elements of the game, hence the post in "balancing issues".
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.30 13:21:00 - [1318] Railguns need a serious looking at.... Has CCP ever given an official response or admission to this ? Or has it been just countless player posts ?
RaptorXL Caldari Tax Evasion R US	Posted - 2011.02.03 05:44:00 - [1319] Fix the Nighthawk POWERGRID issue! Been several threads on this! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Boost_Nighthawk_%28CSM%29 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777872 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=707499 It's the only command ship that can not even fit a gang link. Please address this!
Vishnu Rama	Posted - 2011.02.04 17:28:00 - [1320] Edited by: Vishnu Rama on 04/02/2011 17:32:13 Karn Velora, that is just sad alright, t1 and t2 components all have their place, I would rather pay dirt nothing for a ship and go pvp for an afternoon loosing 10 ships and not more then 50 mill over buying t2 and spending 200m on the t2 fits. Everything has its place and you obviously missed the boat there. T1 is for beginners and pvp, why BECAUSE ITS CHEAP! This way you can loose it and get back into it without breaking the bank. T3 ships are NOT in need of readjustment. FFS you guys really need to learn how to fit, I can make a Proteus have 500k-1m EHP, put out 900+ DPS without breaking a sweat or the bank. I can make the tengu active tank like a mad and put out 700 DPS. But I can do the same thing with a BS or a BC with less money and sp invested. Loki......its just bad ass, good speed, dps and tank, its an all around ship. Legion needs ALOT of loving though I will agree with that, it needs help. T3 takes skill to fit, you have to know what your doing, you can't just happen upon it very easily. As for battle cruisers, omfg get off of the drake I can make Minmatar and amarr bc put out crazy DPS, easy and cheap. We are talking around 900 DPS and some decent tank to go with it, CHEAP! What can the drake do? oooo it can passive tank mehish, to top it off its dps is **, omg the drake can have a 600-1k dps tank and it puts out 400 dps wa wa waaaaa. The hur and harb can tank 400 dps and put out 900 dps but but but the drake is over powered waaaa. go cry yourself a pity pond. Dramiels are NOT over powered, everything has a weakness, you just have to think FFS, role in a vaga, loki, tengu, proteus, guess what is gona happen? That dramiel pilot is gona mess himself and run for the hills, and if he isn't on top of everything going on, he will die inside 2 volleys, 3 max. ** roll in two interceptors and pop him, omg 2x 25-30m ships take on a 100+ m ship and pop it, wow I can't say I'm amazed. Hell if you have a clue and are good at pvp roll in a few destroyers and pop him. BlackOps needs alot of loving, straight up and that doesn't need to be explained this has been covered before. Cov ops cloaking and more dps, a few other things, there has been alot discussed before on the subject. Legion needs love. That goes without saying. Cov ops sub on t3's should be able to fit a covert cyno. Auto cannons and artys need some lovin, people have stated this before, they hit it, I won't reiterate. Hybrids need alot of love, there is no way to sugar coat it. ooops hehe made a mistake :-P

Kepakh	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:45:00 - [1321] 1) Faction ships. Faction ships should never be better or as good as T2 ships. There was once reasonable concept of faction modules giving little advantage for high cost, faction ship boost moved this sensitive balance out of whack. 2) Blasters/Minmatar If you want blasters to be superior at close range, they also need to be fitted on ships get them to close fast enough and/or keep their target at place. A role of fast ships is supposedly taken by Minmatar so you either find a compromise or better define their role. 3) Energy Neutralizers Especially on smaller ships with limited slots to fit cap booster or even NOS their effect is way too powerful.
MorningLightMountain1	Posted - 2011.02.09 22:01:00 - [1322] 1.) Balance grav plexes so they are more inline with what is needed for manufacturing. At this point, you can not produce products using the minerals offered in the grav plexes alone. If the system does not have enough standard belts (12 or more) the system is useless for doing anything but making ISK by striping high end ores. The small grav plex should yield ore that is in the same ratio as you find in normal T1 production. As the index goes up the ratio shifts up toward ISK farming. The extra large plex should be the best at stripping over and over yielding the best ISK per m3. It should be the second or third smallest with 45% ABCM. The giant should be twice as large as the second largest plex and yield 36-40% ABCM. The total ISK per M3 would be much lower then other grav sites but the ISK that can be made by cherry picking the ABCMs should be totally worth the risk of brining hostiles to the system because of the index level. It should also yield large amounts of trit and pye minerals to balance out the lack of them in the large and extra large so that a corp with a index of 5 can still produce products on the scale that matches the number of industrialists involved in maintaining the system, even if they do not have the asteroid belt count. 2.) Corps rely heavily on the asteroids that the plexes offer. Please fix the grav plexes so they despawn/respawn reliably rather then the current random 3-5 day timers. 3.) If their is a way you can think of that would fix time zone issues with grav sites that would be awesome. My half baked idea would be if grav sites were more like anomalies that spawn and despawn with the use of triggers or timers then anomalies can spawn randomly through out the day giving players of all time zones access to the same ore types.
Tanaka Reina Caldari Happy Penquins	Posted - 2011.02.11 07:22:00 - [1323] 1. Hybrids, railguns in particular but blasters too(only damage increase for blasters imo) they are meant to be shotguns and have limitations, only autocannons dont have limitations :P 2. Battleships, slight damage increase, so they could do more damage to caps, Its just good game mechanics that they cant hit frigs.(come on, what drones are for anyway) 3. tier system, drop it. Dropping it would release a load of ships back to the game (does anyone see shield repping ospreys anywhere?)
Kyle Cataclysm Blue.	Posted - 2011.02.11 11:34:00 - [1324] 1. Mackinaw suffers from low base cpu. Skiff has 188cpu, it uses one mining laser. Hulk has 300cpu, uses three lasers. The Mackinaw uses two ice harvesters, which use 10% more CPU than regular strip miners. Yet the Mackinaw has 198 base cpu, which is only 10cpu more than a skiff. 2. COSMOS storyline items are underwhelming. They're often quite difficult to manufacture, yet they often have worse stats than their T2 counterpart. 3. Deep Space Transport ships still have an active tanking bonus. All four ships suffer from small cargohold. For hauling, the Iteron Mark 5 (T1 industrial) is better. Not only because of a larger cargohold, but also because of significant better agility. If the hardly used active tanking bonus was removed, they could receive a bonus to cargo capacity or agility instead. Even with a second 5% bonus to cargo capacity, these haulers would not reach the critical 50k m3 barrier (required to haul a packaged battleship). New cargo space: (max skills, T2 expanders, T2 rigs when possible, no GSC) Impel: 49,271 m& Occator: 48,316 m& Iteron MK V: 41,839 m& Bustard: 41,688 m& Mastodon: 39,788 m&
Tore Smith Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.02.14 10:45:00 - [1325] 1. hybrids - esp. rails need a boost. 2. insurance payout though concord is involved - suiciding is basically free. at least it should involve doing some math. 3. no further mission income nerfs, instead a boost to make them interesting - more content, more story, more variety.
Thyroxine	Posted - 2011.02.16 12:31:00 - [1326] The penality for fitting armor plates (increased mass) is too great compared to the penality for fitting shield extenders (increased signature radius). In roaming gangs or in any role where speed is at least slightly important, ships who were designed around armor tanking are at a great disadvantage. Armor plates should increase signature radius instead of mass. That allows ships with many low slots but few midslots to start performing well in situations that require both speed and durability (so we might actually start seeing something other than 80% minmatar gangs). Armor rigs are in a similar situation as armor plates. The penality is a lot harsher than the one of shield rigs. Shield Extenders having the effect of increasing shield regeneration at no cap cost are problematic. It would probably be a good idea to have Energy Neutralizers also affect shield regeneration to make sure this can be countered the same way as active shield boosting/armor repairing. Blasters and especially Railguns need looking at.
Nobani Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.02.19 19:59:00 - [1327] - Maybe not unbalanced per-se, but currently Deep Space Transports are underpowered compared with both Blockade Runners and T1 Industrials. It would be nice if cargo capacity was buffed to put their capacity between T1 Industrials and Orcas. - Supercap fleets (especially MS). There should be a counter other than "more supercaps". Probably all supercaps should have their HP debuffed along with doomsday nerf. Maybe make doomsday shots require expensive (several hundred mil) ammo. - Anti-synergy in Gallente race. Shortest range close-range weapons, but slow and un-agile due to armor tanking. RSD decrease range, but blasters require short range anyway. RSD lock-time script is "use impared". Bonus: - Non-caldari EWAR drones. - Hel. At least change the rep speed bonus to a rep amount bonus in line with the change made to the nidhoggur.
Pingu Gallente EVE University Ivy League	Posted - 2011.02.24 02:57:00 - [1328] hybrids: need a buff badly LP stores: more variation market: need some changes vs macro's New items and not just 2/4/6% implants would be nice
BugraT WarheaD	Posted - 2011.02.24 11:14:00 - [1329] 1) Override Transfert Array sites in Sanshas' vanguard incursion type need to be completly reviewed. Disabling the station by hacking is a nice objective on the paper, but not in Eve ! The worst thing was to put all the array so far. Please CCP, go to a vanguard incursion and see that only this site remains after 10 hours, certainly because it's not balance so great. only two things can change this : make the disable-duration longer (3 or 4 times the actual time) or put the can to hack on the station and please, don't make it poping everywhere ! 2) pleaaaaaaaaase more incursion at the time in high sec, for no incursion last only 12 to 24 hours, it's nothing srsly ! if we have every time a incursion in the 4 empires, they will stay longer somewhere, and if you put (i dream i know but that will be great !) sanshas at gates and station, economy will seriously be not so damaged by the income generated by succesful capsuleers' fleet ! 3) i used to think that demanding 50+ pilots for a nation HQ seems nice but with actual gameplay and paranona of the average eve player, only massive corporations/alliances can go there and take the site down efficiently, why not reducing the number of pilots demanded and adjusting the balance for this. I'm certain that 1/3 people for scout, 5/6 for vanguard, 10/12 for Assault and 20/25 for HQ will certainly push more people in it and also push more people on high end sites.
Steamroll McGee The Priesthood The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.02.24 20:20:00 - [1330] 1. Bounty hunting should be a way of "solo wardeccing" not a way for players to profit off each other with zero risk. 2. Corporations are too easy to start and free to maintain leading to a proliferation of micro-corps used entirely as a vehicle to wardec everyone. 3. Insurrance payouts need to be a percentage of the actual value of goods lost/destroyed, not some arbitrary flat rate.

Xylorn Hasher	Posted - 2011.03.02 09:06:00 - [1331] Lowsec needs ISK/h/risk boost. People need to be encourage to enter or even live in low security space rather than stay hi forever. I've cleaned Hrondedir yesterday it was about 20 belts and bounty for cleaning entire system was less than 4m. That is far less than average lv4 mission. Hisec ISK/h should be nerfed heavly especially lv4 missions. Blasters also need optimal range boost.
rthjm Odunen	Posted - 2011.03.08 23:34:00 - [1332] 1. Hel Supercarrier Srsly, there's no balance if something obviously sucks 2. Shortrange Lasers need Tracking nerved massively or suck more cap. 3. Speedtank needs love again. All those speednervs made it hard to speedtank anymore. Current speedtanks don't really decrease damage but rather run from points. Small ships should easier tank big weapons again.
Nick Curso Diabolus Ex Machina The Amazing Onjoi and his Educated Rodents	Posted - 2011.03.11 13:53:00 - [1333] Edited by: Nick Curso on 11/03/2011 13:56:46 1. Drake- Never before has a ship been so overpowered for so long without receiving the nerf hammer. Massive tank, great DPS good for pvp, missions, anomaly EVERYTHING. Can kill considerably more expensive and higher class ships without bating an eyelid. Show me anything else more versatile or as tough for 20mil. Its practically mandatory there is at least one in every system. 2.Hacs need a boost allround pretty much 3. Pirate BS. The best pirate bs for pvp The Vindicator, Bhaalgorn and Machariel all require Mini BS thats leaves only the Nightmare and the lackluster Rattlesnake. The skill balance here should be obvious. Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Scavenger Wolf	Posted - 2011.03.15 23:02:00 - [1334] 1. Agreed > Insurrance payouts need to be a percentage of the actual value of goods lost/destroyed, not some arbitrary flat rate. 2. Railguns/Blasters need some re-balancing 3. Planetary Interaction - Storage Facility Uses 700 Power Grid and only provides 5k m3 space while the launch pad also uses 700 Power Grid but provides 10k m3 space.
Tibilo	Posted - 2011.03.16 19:16:00 - [1335] T2 ammo. A lot of it has penalties that are too severe with very little or no real benefit over faction ammo. similarly some drawbacks to rigs almost don't matter while others are too crippling, such as the armor rigs. The speed reduction is almost like the shield rigs reducing weapon range. Hybrids. Rails and blasters have far too limited a set of circumstances where they have an advantage or even equal other weapon systems. T3 cruisers. Particularly the pve performance, the other 3 don't come close to the Tengu and seem to offer little benefit over their t2 counterparts.
Korg Tronix The Mabinogion	Posted - 2011.03.17 09:37:00 - [1336] Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 11/03/2011 13:56:46 1. Drake- Never before has a ship been so overpowered for so long without receiving the nerf hammer. Massive tank, great DPS good for pvp, missions, anomaly EVERYTHING. Can kill considerably more expensive and higher class ships without bating an eyelid. Show me anything else more versatile or as tough for 20mil. Its practically mandatory there is at least one in every system. Could you show me where you can buy drake hulls and fits for 20mil please, there all 32+ for the hull alone near me
DaRk'TaLoN90	Posted - 2011.03.17 18:35:00 - [1337] Edited by: DaRk''TaLoN90 on 17/03/2011 18:42:44 1) The Kestrel is totally underpowered in pvp, its a long range ship that shouldn't have to risk its range advantage by fitting Rocket Launchers just to get a decent dps. Therefore I think the Kestrel should recive bonuses in Missile Launchers rate of fire and/or add the ability to use Assult Missile Launchers. 2) The Hawk should have the ability to use Assult Missile Launchers, much like a kestrel when fitted with Missile Launchers it lacks good dps, so most pilots use Rocket Launchers instead, therefore making the Hawks potential long range combat abilities useless. With an Assult Launcher fit the Hawk will still have a slower rate of fire than most but it will put out more dps than a Missile Launcher fit Hawk, therefore making it a much more fearsome ship for countering overpowered kiting ships like the Dramiel. 3) Storeage facilites for PI cost way too much powergrid for the amount they store, they should store more than Launch pads and/or cost less powergrid.
Doug Drafto	Posted - 2011.03.22 07:20:00 - [1338] Edited by: Doug Drafto on 22/03/2011 07:24:12 Gallente is so ridiculously underpowered it is disgusting. The ships are slow, fine they always have been... but when CCP nerfed MWDs it hurt Gallente WAY more than it hurt Minmatar. Minmatar is still fast as hell, their guns use no energy, and they have like 20k of fall off. A vagabond can track and damage at 15k while nano'd out with a huge passive shield tank. Blasters need to be up close. Killing off webifiers accomplished what? It only further ruined Gallente. They are big fat sitting ducks, its ridiculous. On a Cynabal you can get 360+ DPS 13k of shields and a time to warp in the two second range with a top speed of 2600 or so. With a Vigilant... dream on. Its like that for every single ship in Gallente race. Deimos? Lol. Just fix it please, its ridiculous. If you want to nerf nano, nerf the ships that overly benefit from nano tech not the ones that NEED every little bit of speed and agility to even be able to get in range of something. You can put blasters on a Rokh and hit from 20km... blasters on a Mega... lol. Most of the nano nerfs have only furthered vagabonds and minmatar ships and hurt the big slow gallentes. 1. Blasters need better tracking if webs only go to 60%. 2. Gallente needs a boost in armor tanking to come even close to passive shield tanking. 3. Needs to be faster and more agile, not more than a vagabond, but at least on the same playing field 4. Increase blaster fall off by 33% and optimal by 20%. Thanks.
Synderq	Posted - 2011.03.22 14:33:00 - [1339] If you're going to move lv4 missions out of hi-sec then you need to make low-sec more accessible to all players (including soloists). I can think of a few ways to do this listed below. 1. Make the solar systems more interconnected. Most of my game time is spent travelling. If I am doing exploration and look on the map and see a low sec system with nobody in it I might try to get there only to find out I need to take 20 jumps or whatever. Multiple routes to places would also help combat the next problem: 2. Remove the ability to gate camp. As a relativley new player I can tell you this is the single most prevelant reason I will not go in to low sec. I am well aware it should be more dangerous going to low sec and I can expect to get attacked by other players but getting ganged up on as soon as I enter a system (after spending potentially 20 mins travelling) is not fun. There is harldy much of a "risk" (which everbody is banging on about) for gate campers is there? By all means search me out etc but make it a fair fight. 2a. On a related not give me some kind of automated solution for detecting if I am being scanned out. I am not suggecting some 100% foolproof solution that will always alert me to incoming players but I shouldn't need to keep hitting the directional scann every 10 seconds. It sucks and I am getting RSI. 3. Venturing in to a new low-sec system is a hassle. First I have to fly in with a Heron/Buzzard whatever to set up safe bookmarks and then fly all the way to my home station and back again in my mission ship. Give me the ability to pick random points in the solar system and bookmark them. How is this any different in real life to choosing a place to drive to and then driving to it? It would make exploring a new solar system a lot more appealing. 4. Expand the universe. There needs to be a lot more solar systems. I was looking at the map on Sunday there and there was hardly a solar system without a person in it in the last 30 mins. Open up Jove or whatever, add new ones please. It is suppsoed to be space. If I thought I could go in to low/null sec and potentially not meet anyone who would rain on my parade I may be more tempted to do it.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:46:00 - [1340] 1. Cloaked fleet boosting ships. Fleet boosting ships in POSes. If you're helping your fleet, then you should be vulnerable. 2. Blasters on Gallente hulls. 3. Super capitals in low sec. If you can't build it in low sec, you shouldn't be able to deploy it in low sec.

MadJim	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:27:00 - [1341] Gawd I love this thread. I hope the devs are looking... would love for some of the most repeated issues here to be finally dealt with. Mine are 1) No insurance company anywhere pays out when someone commits suicide. Remove payouts altogether for ships lost while suicide ganking. Allowing this activity is fine... subsidizing it is not. 2) Rockets... yes make them better. The poor Malediction is a complete joke. Oh and what gives making the Retribution with only 1 mid slot? How in the hell can you possibly use an AF for anything if it can't fit both a disruptor/scram and an AB/MWD? Amarr assault frigs are useless. 3) Blasters and Rails are pretty bad. How could it possibly make sense to fit Autocannons on a Galente Battlecruiser... ie the Myrmidon... 'cause without some huge ship bonus, the Galente weapons suck. 4) Give us some faction and navy Battle Cruisers please...
Shingorash Caldari Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:14:00 - [1342] Edited by: Shingorash on 06/04/2011 14:16:43 a). Something needs to be done to make people have to go to low sec or 0.0 to produce items instead of sitting in high sec. Basically move level 4's to low sec, level 5's to 0.0 and put some slightly better minerals in low sec as a balance. b). Hybrid Ammo - Range is far too short. c). Hull Tanking - Get it put back into the game correctly as Gallente ships in some ways have a lot of issues and can be fit in almost every way despite their hull's being massive. Either remove structure altogether and buff shields and armor or make it of at least some use. d). Missiles need a bit of love when it comes to explosion velocity especially heavy assault missiles. e). Shield tanked ships should get a little bit of tank against EM (even 10% would help) as Amarr ships just destroy shield tanked ships at the moment. f). Scorch's max range and / or dps needs to be reduced. g). Logistics Drones and EWar drones need improving. They were fine when T2 ships didnt exist but now T2 ships have higher sensor strengths they are useless (ecm as an example). h). Gallente ships need more drone space / bandwidth as they should have, its their "thing". i). Caldari ships are slightly too slow, bearing in mind they are shield tanked and therefore have a penalty to sig radius they should be a little faster. (Legion with armor tank and MWD is faster than a Tengu how???) j). Caldari ships should get a damage bonus to all missiles and not just kinetic as it is far too easy to tank specifically for them in PVP. k). There are a few Navy Issue ships that never get used because the slot layout, bonus' and PG / CPU are all totally wrong. These need fixing. l). Cyno's should only be allowed to be lit from ships above a certain class or require more CPU to use. Frigates should really not be lighting Cyno's. Should be left to Recon ships or Battleships. Perhaps double the fuel requirement to light a cyno. Cant think of anything else atm... -------------------------------------------------- I'm in your space, eating your ships!
Aloe Cloveris The Greater Goon	Posted - 2011.04.14 19:54:00 - [1343] 1. Fix hybrids. 2. Swap fitting requirements for HM vs. HAM so Drakes will have to choose between 70km range + weak tank vs. short range + good tank. As an added bonus, they'll actually have to use that capacitor surplus to burn into range just like every other ship in the game does, as opposed to sitting in place and yet still managing to cover half the ****ing grid. 3. Fix hybrids.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.04.25 00:49:00 - [1344] Does Nozh even work at CCP anymore? I thought he'd left.
Gangster101 PureLove	Posted - 2011.04.25 07:44:00 - [1345] Fix hybrids (I'm not asking anyone to make it the "elite turret" in the game but make it as versitle and viable as other turrets / launchers in the game.)
Ruthless Erection	Posted - 2011.04.26 21:38:00 - [1346] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h) This is the biggest single issue I have in EvE, alongside with 0.0 POS-grind-for-sov. Seriously, every single time you see some economic activity discussed you always see the same "meh makes thr same/less ISK than level 4s for more effort". Missions URGENTLY need reforming. Yes there will be huge floods of tears on the forums, but the problem will get worse the longer it is left. It has been left too long already. 0.0 class rewards, collected with no danger, no competition, no real effort or skill, have no place in hi-sec. I'm betting you were on of the jerks who voted for Anomalies to be changed and true sec take effect? You sir, should quit playing eve, and go pod yourself.
Fredfredbug4 Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.26 22:52:00 - [1347] 1. Hybrids are underpowered. Just think of a random combat scenario and think of the weapon you would want to use. Long range battle? Not hybrids missiles or artillery. Short range dogfight? Not hybrids, pulses, autocannons, and even torpedoes do much better than a blaster could hope for. 2. Make lasers use less cap. They should still be the most cap hungry guns in the game but just lower it a bit more. It makes no sense to me that a race who's ships are supposed to be amazing at armor tanking, can't tank because their guns are stealing the cap they need to run the tank
Herr Nerdstrom Caldari Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.30 18:24:00 - [1348] The jamming present in the game at present is bordering on the ridiculous. This is bad enough for veteran players in 0.0, but even worse for new players who cannot get any enjoyment from the game as a result of hour long jamming sessions for a single highsec mission.
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov	Posted - 2011.05.02 18:33:00 - [1349] 1. Hybrids! Please fix them. Give blasters more damage to compensate for their other inadequacies. Rails? Well, I don't know - but do something. Fixing hybrids would also go a long way to fixing the Gallente. 2. General ship balance: Drake in particular. By all means make a ship without any real weaknesses - just don't make it 'master of all trades'. Excellent damage, excellent protection, no cap or fitting issues, easy to skill for? That's just too much. If it must have no weakness, then make sure to curb its strengths. 3. High-sec missions are too profitable. The risk/reward relationship is out of kilter.
DetCord Saisio Caldari UnchainedPotential Hand That Feeds	Posted - 2011.05.13 01:09:00 - [1350] 1) Corporation Taxes (tax rate) are not balanced. Yes, there is a very good reason taxes are collected by corporations. Yes, corporations need to survive and maintain a constant flow of income in order to operate and keep its corp members happy. Yes, tax is applied automatically for mission bounty prizes, agent mission rewards, and mission time bonus rewards and applies only if the amount is in excess of 100,000 ISK. Since all other occupations are not included in the current taxation mechanic (i.e. player's wallet journal and transactions show all income and taxes incurred), corporation tax rate is left up to the players in those corporation leadership positions to figure out how to implement the tax rate. Though no record of "outside source" income is saved to a player's wallet until a game mechanic kicks in showing what happened. Individuals are left "trusting" the financials were handled correctly with no wallet record for confirmation, aside from an email using numbers generated by players. All the skill categories should be included since they all contribute to income and therefore the generation of taxes... trade, exploration, planet management, social, manufacturing, inventing, mining, missions, pve, pvp, and leadership all could be included in some form or fashion. I suggest overhauling the tax mechanic in order to standardize tax rates based on value of goods/services for all possible occupations now and future. Time is money and spending time mining or guarding those miners or a pvp fleet killing the entire mining fleet should all have some sort of AUTOMATIC compensation pay rate. Thusly, the tax rate can properly be implemented in order for a correct amount of income to be flowing to the corp wallet and those corp leaders that keep the New Eden world turning. 2) Mining/Indy Ships need stronger defenses: Survival in low/nul sec goes to the blobbed, for sure. (I do not pvp much, so I hope I get this next part right.) Many ships can alpha their target, which makes for a great ISK sink. Don't get me wrong, pvp ships are designed for speed and flexibility and force projection... some are small and quick, others are large and slow but hit harder. Compare for a moment mining frigates to mining cruisers/battlecruisers/battleships. Oh wait, that's right there are no mining amount bonuses on bc or bs. Are mining barges and exhumers supposed to be in that category? On all mining/indy vessels, I would prevent fitting any module used to damage or negatively affect other ships but beef up the defense by like ten fold. Killing mining ships is just plain stupid easy for any pvp group. Ships of an industrial nature should not be paper thin. Railroad locomotives are huge, slow, and heavy, but they are god-awful tough; same for trash barges, petrol ocean liners, military ocean fleet ships, due to the nature of the environment they were designed to survive in. The vacuum of space should make it that much more so. If increased defense is not possible via huge shields, armor, hull, resists, etc, then reduce the signature radius by a class size or increase the "empty" agility/sub-warp speed/warp-speed. With those powerful engines, full they should be "slow as all get out" but very fast when empty. 3) More little fluffy bunny pets, like for them to walk around with in station. Not like I am into that, but girls like that kind of stuff. The more girls, the more fun can be had by all. ;)

Joy Beratt	Posted - 2011.05.17 05:20:00 - [1351] Oh God, why people want game mechanics to correct human factors. When CCP start to make game mechanics restrict people use of the game, EVE is doomed. If focusing on what game mechanics really should be, it would be easier to have demands heard. Regardless of human choices, some mechanics really unballance the game. Imo the worse ones are: - The learning system clearly favors the road towards combat/PvP Skills, allowing a good deal of them to be trained in a faster time just by relying on 2 attributes all of them. Who needs to improve tech skills to counter EWar if having a kicking siege war skill will render EWar useless ? And, why focus on industry and mining when theft and "miner molesting" is quicker to learn and easier to do ? - The combat mechanics goes focusing on large engagements and people whining about "why-my-frigate-cant-one-shot-super-capitals-ish" things, where changes ultimate make day-by-day can baiters and hisec rats annoyance better ? - Make it clear the main focus of the game: Is it a combat game ? Is it a virtual universe ? Things move towards one or other everytime. The VU concept will have the combat concept in it, but not only. The combat only concept wont allow the other concepts of a VU to unfold. The hisec today isnt much of a hisec when you cant really have the asurance of "empire protection" while in empire space. There are so many ways to shoot non combative people without even security penalty. If combat pilots really had to rely on miners and manufacturers to make their war machines, it would really work, but that concept of "most things are made by players" is a bit overrated, when you can see clearly that if all people stop manufacturing and mining, there would still be NPC sales of high quality ships, ammo and modules to ensure wars forever in hisec/lowsec. For sov and 0.0, it really doesnt take "that time or work" to not need any group of industry players to sustain big warmachines. Only PvP pilots can really taste the "I am part of EVE world history" today.
t'raq mardon	Posted - 2011.05.20 15:15:00 - [1352] only need one 1) cloaking: its unbalanced because it has no counter weight. as long as a ship is cloaked it is completely invulnerable and undetectable and the only way to counter a cloaked ship is to wait for it to decloak therefor giving the cloaked player 100% of the power.
DetKhord Saisio Caldari UnchainedPotential Hand That Feeds	Posted - 2011.05.20 19:11:00 - [1353] Originally by: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov Fixing hybrids would also go a long way to fixing the Gallente. That and a lifetime supply of duct tape. Add a duct tape bay, that holds 1000 rolls of duct tape, to all Gallente ships so they can repair instantly. <Nothing important to see here, move along.> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision
Mekhana Gallente Spiritus Draconis	Posted - 2011.05.23 23:55:00 - [1354] With addition of the guns, a lot of the hybrid ammo are useless. Either make the ammo (and guns) worth it or eliminate the dead weight.
Jack Coutu Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.05.28 11:56:00 - [1355] Originally by: t'raq mardon only need one 1) cloaking: its unbalanced because it has no counter weight. as long as a ship is cloaked it is completely invulnerable and undetectable and the only way to counter a cloaked ship is to wait for it to decloak therefor giving the cloaked player 100% of the power. said the botter
Anh Nguyen	Posted - 2011.05.30 07:25:00 - [1356] Edited by: Anh Nguyen on 30/05/2011 07:25:32 1/ Please give the drone tracking mod: Omnidirectional tracking enhancer the similar fall off bonus from tracking enhancer and tracking computer, eve is a competitive games after all, you should not give one guy (turret slinger) the edge without giving that same edge to the other guy (drone slinger) that same edge, because the sentry drone is essentially a battleship long range gun. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1516286
Elvis Preslie	Posted - 2011.06.02 04:45:00 - [1357] The main imbalance of EVE I have brought up in discussion here: Warp Core Stabilizers
Griptus	Posted - 2011.06.03 01:36:00 - [1358] Edited by: Griptus on 03/06/2011 01:47:54 The Greatest Anti-Blob Solution of All Time
Zindee Gallente Eternal Profiteers Academy	Posted - 2011.06.06 16:47:00 - [1359] I would like to see mining ships get a little love bump the resists 10% accross the board and maybe add the warp strength bonus that the skiff gets to all the exumers. i would also like to see a end to insurance payouts for ships killed by concord. this wont end suicide ganks but would make it just a little more costly and give the mining ship at least a slim chance of escape. I also see a discrepency between the races in damage dealing and in shield VS armor in PvP the damage out put looks like it's close but the ability to apply it seems lop sided.
Phigmeta	Posted - 2011.06.13 17:46:00 - [1360] More tech Moons..... Method to improve output from Moons (t2 miners) OH and FFS fix alchemy (what a joke) And for the love of god spread the tech out a bit please. OH and while your at it fix Gallente FFS. Ya want proof that no one likes to fly gallente ... look at the market for gallente specific building materials... yeah its freaking flat.... why ... NO DEMAND

Stacy Lane	Posted - 2011.06.14 10:42:00 - [1361] 1. Blasters. 2. Sentries shooting drones in low sec (can't do piracy in a drone boat and coupled with 1 above rules out a large number of Gallente ships from being effective in low sec). 3. Getting criminally flagged for remote repping a gang and corp mate because they are flashy red (not really a balance issue just a plainly broken mechanic).
Solli Crow	Posted - 2011.06.18 00:26:00 - [1362] 1. Unscannable ships. I have maxed out skills in probing, pimped up ship and yet, I can't probe out those ships. why do I train my skills for several months just to find out that my time is wasted? Plus, they run missions in low sec getting near 100k LP. You are kidding me? absolutely ssfely knowing that nobody can find them. 2. Blasters need boost. It is true, the guns are pretty bad since web nerf.
WenaraHUN Amarr HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:04:00 - [1363] Edited by: WenaraHUN on 27/06/2011 14:04:30 Originally by: "Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Northern Coalition." Issue: If you join a fleet with armour bonuses, they are applied instantly, adding xx % to your armour. If you join a fleet with shield bonuses, they are NOT applied instantly, instead your total shield is increased but the amount is shown as 'damage', requiring you to wait for a long time for it to passively recharge, or to boost it / have it boosted to max before you can enjoy the full bonus. Even worse, this happens every time you change sessions (undock, jump system, jump cyno, etc.) Proposal: Make shield bonuses apply instantly, like armour. If you have already taken damage, its easy to not make it exploitable by making new shield % == old shield %, or one of many other ways. The proposal has been brought up a first time, and it was deemed incomplete. I would like to re-raise it with the following addition: To prevent passive shield tankers (depending on recharge) to gain benefits from this bonus, it should increase shield recharge time by the same % that it does shield HP. This should count for both normal gang bonuses and titan fleet bonuses, so that the siege warfare skill would read: 'increases gang member shield hp and recharge time by 2% per level' And the leviathan description would read: 'increase gang members shield hp and recharge time by 7.5% per level' This makes sure that the recharge rate per second stays the same when compared to non-bonused, thus negating any advantage the ship main gain from recharge. - Sok. Here is a good idea for balancing the gang bonuses. Something should be down with the shield gang bonus, because at the current state the HP bonus is hardly ever useabble, due the extremely long time which is required to recharge few K or millions of shields HP.
Klytior Am'jarhs	Posted - 2011.06.28 09:47:00 - [1364] 1. Supercarriers/mothership I did mission in lowsec not for the extra bit of LP and ISK but to shoot the pirates that came by. Then they introduced motherships. Ever since the point they entered the game they ruin the experience for me. First you couldn't tackle them in lowsec you need to bump and neut them. Only the destroyer interdictor excisted. So Ign0ramus entered system... and we well as mission runners 20 vs 1 couldn't do anything... I spend 3 day in a row loggin in .. looking at local an log off again. And we try to hurt him like this one: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=2212786 Okey they aren't the undestroyable gatecampers anymore. But they hunt for any carrier because they can destroy it within 60second if it aggress on undock. There is no point at flying other capitals vs SC just because the amount of dps. Please get them where they belong. 2. t2 ammo 3. t1 destroyers are bad except thrasher...
Dark' Lord Minmatar Malum. Darklings	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:34:00 - [1365] 1. Supercarriers in lowsec (they just ruin any fight you get in lowsec) 2. Nano ships 3. Cloak and mwd trick for insta warp
Shadow Wind Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.06.29 23:20:00 - [1366] 1. Gallente ships (boost armor rep bonus and get rid of mwd bonus in favor of something else, maybe mwd speed or hybrid tracking/falloff?) 2. Boost Hybrid weapons both blasters and rails. Fail at tracking, fail at cap, fail at inventory space, fail at range/dps ratio 3. Make mining more interesting. Maybe something that can boost mining yields for people who aren't botting such as random moments when people can turn off their mining cycle early but still get the full cycle yield (thus mining more per minute but requiring you to actually stare at your screen. Plus something to just generally make it more challenging (besides the risk of losing your ship to rats and pvpers)
Selnix Gallente North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.30 05:54:00 - [1367] 1. Hybrids 2. AF 4th Bonus 3. Small gang/Solo pvp
Meditril	Posted - 2011.06.30 13:18:00 - [1368] Edited by: Meditril on 30/06/2011 13:18:45 Tier 1 Navy Issue Cruisers are totally dominated by their tier 2 counterparts. For example Scythe Fleet Issue is described to be fastest ship however due to it's much higher mass than the Stabber Fleet Issue it is almast as fast as the Stabber Fleet Issue with MWD turned on. You will find a similar situation for the other Navy Issue Cruisers. Solution proposal: Reduce the mass of all Tier 1 Navy Issue Cruisers to the mass of their Tier 2 counterpart. This will make this class of ships useful. Then they are still significantly weaker than their Tier 2 counterparts but they will get significantly faster than Tier 2, which is a fair trade.
orange offspring	Posted - 2011.06.30 16:43:00 - [1369] not exactly balancing anything but be nice if you could make some obvious and simple changes that are important especially if you have more than 1 character, changing settings like for example turning station graphics off on alts and leaving it on your main and when you log on next time its the same ... at the moment if you leave 1 character with station graphics on then all others will have it on even tho you have turned it off ... rather anooying as when you forget and load up all your characters it takes about 2 weeks for your PC to actually load all the CQ crap
Rich Bong	Posted - 2011.07.03 20:59:00 - [1370] Edited by: Rich Bong on 03/07/2011 21:01:48 Having issues with gate and station campers using neutral party boosters or worse alts in opposing faction for support. We see em but cant do anything about em without taking a standings hit. Id like to see a Militia Tribunal Court (players) who can declare a character (nautral or even friendly) an enemy of the state based on assisting or spying for the other team. Maybe appoint one person from each of the 3-6 largest militia corps to run the Tribunal court. This puts more power in the hands of the players and helps CCP stay away from in-game politics.

Frank Bean	Posted - 2011.07.05 04:43:00 - [1371] Hi, I started playing eve a few months ago; almost 7 million skillpoints, 2.4 million of them in drones. Here's what I think. 1. Drone boats - I am gallente, so take it for what it's worth. Vexor: make the drone bay exactly like the arbitor, bandwidth and all. Myrm: Make the bandwidth 80 and increase the drone bay to 200. Domi is fine. Reason: It's the versatility of the drone boats that makes them cool. compared to the arbitor's drone bay the vexor feels like the little brother. I'd rather have the versatility of a large drone bay and limited bandwidth than the other way around. The myrm, just to make it's pvp and pve abilities better, being able to field 2 ogres and 3 hammerheads for some proper damage output, combined with buffer tanking pvp ships who negate a nice bonus to the ship it would be nice to have something to fall back on, again, versatility. As for the other gallente cruisers... 2. Other gallente cruisers - just make the brutix increase it's drone bay to 75. makes the versatility to engage medium and small targets a nice addition to the other bonuses. That's it. 3. I see a lot of comments about blaster boats, but since I have limited pvp experience i'll just stay out of that one. so I have no #3. That's my 2 cents.
Dallenn Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2011.07.05 13:07:00 - [1372] 1. Frigates are too weak (DPS & survivability) 2. High-speed ships & fits are too weak and uncommon 3. PoS and Sov fights are decided by who builds the strongest blob, not by who orchestrates best small hit-and-run attacks at several targets -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Andrew Maxwell	Posted - 2011.07.10 21:05:00 - [1373] 1. Railguns 2. Blasters 3. Hybrid Turrets Gallente boats are obsolete in almost all cases-Amarr do more damage, because you always give Amarr more lowslots-2 magstabs vs 3 heat sinks means amarr wins. What's more, blasters take more cap. Gallente is also slower, which means no range control, and their tanking bonuses are far inferior to Amarr, as Amarr tanks actively just as well as Gallente but can also buffer much better. This is, of course, -in addition- to their longer range weapons which take no ammo, less cap, have longer range and have space to be bonused to do more damage on nearly every ship. Take a long, hard look at a Moros and ask yourself "Why would someone ever choose this ship over a revelation-ever?" If you're going to nerf webs into oblivion, blasters need something big, and rails are a joke webs aside. Caldari have unique control over damage types and amazing passive tanks, minmatar have the ability to decide when and at what range to engage in combat at, and Amarr have the best armor tanks and the best weapon types. Drones are not nearly enough to compensate for this.
Digital Messiah Oregami Ultd	Posted - 2011.07.11 03:11:00 - [1374] Hybrid turrets: Rails and blasters need some tweaking. A number of ships: Whether it is their power grid, drone bay, CPU, or agility, there are quite a few that need some love. And quite a few that need to be taken down a notch. Capital ships: By introducing a ship that has a multiplicative amount of health over others. You have in essence made said other ships pawns. Quote: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
Larla Rosethorn Minmatar Renegade Pleasure Androids PURgE Alliance	Posted - 2011.07.14 18:54:00 - [1375] Please fix Nidhoggur http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1548984
ian666 Minmatar Virtual Democracy C0VEN	Posted - 2011.07.16 10:02:00 - [1376] Edited by: ian666 on 16/07/2011 10:02:51 SUPERCARRIERS Ballance Ability to equip ONLY Fighter Bombers - this will solve almost all of not all SC problems. This way things would be like in rl, where each carrier need a substantial number of smaller ships to counter other smaller things. Currently 50man gang can field 50 supers and kill everything from t1 frigate to other supers. Lets make supers more voulnerable to sub-caps, make them only untimate weapon vs structures and other supers, not sub-caps!.
E man Industries	Posted - 2011.07.18 16:02:00 - [1377] not so much a balbnce issue between ships but rather a class of ships. Right now freighters are huge and there is no mid sized option other than the orca(different skill path) Players do not always need to carry the huge amounts freighters carry, but we do not also want a new ship to take away from the freighter. So why of all the ships are there no fittings on these ships? Add 3 rig slots. Reduce the amount they haul so if cargo rigged they are equivalent to current freighters. This would let people set up there freighters how they like. More tank, more speed, more agility or more cargo. Rigs rather than modules because these ships are huge and not easily reconfigured like military vessels. May also promote people having more than one to use when they need a particular load hauled. Also helps use up more rigs and introduces a sink when the rigs are destroyed or changed. Will also make freighters more appealing. Thanks for reading. ______ Hello WoW players. Look at your toon, now back to me. Sadly it isn't me, but if it wasn't simplistic pre scripted linear mono dimensional game you could look like me. I'm in a Paladin
Annrea	Posted - 2011.07.18 17:56:00 - [1378] ECM---(Mainly ECM drones)EC-300's should not be able to jam a T2 cruiser at all and they should have no chance on a T3 with a sensor boosting subsystem. 600's should also have a slim chance(0%-5%) on a T3 with a sensor boosting sub. On cruiser's 600's have a little chance. So on a graph with hull sizes it would look like 5 ECM'drones 300's 600's 900's (avr. time jammed) Frig (10%-20%) (20%-40%) (40%-60%) Cruiser (0%-5%) (10%-20%) (20%-40%) T3+sens (0%) (0%-5%) (10%-20%) BS (0%) (0%-5%) (10%-20%) Captial (0%) (0%) (0%) These are just base aprxs I think are more fair. So a frig spends about 6-12 sec's jammed on avr for every min by those pesky EC-300 drones. 2. The Machariel should not be able to outrun crusiers. It should be limited to have a MW speed of about 2200-2300m/s overheated with two nanos fit. 3. Supercarriers and titans should be 86'ed out of all empire space meaning lowsec. If you cant tackle them without a HIC and a focused point why are they running around empire with no risk really pressing an instant win button. The should be on the BF they were made for, outlaw space in 1000 man fleet battles for SOV of some trusec system. Buying a supercarrier to grieve lowsec is really pretty messed up and should be delt with by flying a pebble size astroid with a few nukes attached into the ventilation shaft of the giant and then ignited from the inside out. Good bye.
Name Family Name	Posted - 2011.07.22 10:48:00 - [1379] 1. Fix Hybrids. Lots has been said on the matter, so I'll keep it short: Rails are dead due to easy insta-probing and the related death of old-school sniperfleets. Blasters can't track anything non-stationary in their own optimal. Combine that with gallente ships being slow, blessed with brick-like inertia and nerfed webs and you have something entirely messed up. 2. Nerf autocannons: tremendous dps, able to deal all damagetypes, capless, lowest fitting requirements, awesome damage projection due to huge profit from tracking enhancers, best tracking of all turrets. Lasers and Hybrids need to do a lot more EFT dps to make up for all the drawbacks mentioned above. Moreover, Minmatar ships have an additional dps/rof bonus where all laserships have that bonus on cap usage.They are more agile, more versatile, have the smallest sig and are faster, which allows them to dictate the terms of any engagement. Projectiles are so damn overpowered, they're the best choice on lots of Gallente, Amarr and Caldari hulls despite missong out their boni, which is ridiculous. 3. Bring Armortanking in line with Shieldtanking. The ability to dictate the rules of engagement due to agility and speed seems to be underestimated by CCP. Active tanking in pvp is mostly dead anyway, which wont change unless there's a stacking penalty on #of ships firing on a single target, but with passive tanks, you end up with gimped agility, topspeed and acceleration on armortanks compared to an increase in sigradius for shieldtanks, which is rather meaningless after a certain threshold had been met. Oh - and you have passive regen as a cherry on top.
NoLimit Soldier	Posted - 2011.07.27 05:16:00 - [1380] Originally by: Name Family Name 1. Fix Hybrids. Blasters can't track anything non-stationary in their own optimal. I stopped reading your post after that. Blasters tracking >> Lasers. Small/Large they even out track projectiles.

Name Family Name	Posted - 2011.07.27 16:46:00 - [1381] Originally by: NoLimit Soldier Originally by: Name Family Name 1. Fix Hybrids. Blasters can't track anything non-stationary in their own optimal. I stopped reading your post after that. Blasters tracking >> Lasers. Small/Large they even out track projectiles. Hint: the key is the part where it says 'within their own optimal'. Granted, I should have added +falloff in case of ACs.... On a side note, large Blasters don't out-track large ACs.
Kaelie Onren	Posted - 2011.07.28 02:37:00 - [1382] Originally by: Rich Bong Edited by: Rich Bong on 03/07/2011 21:08:51 Edited by: Rich Bong on 03/07/2011 21:01:48 1. Minmatar Militia is being choked off from its homeworlds. Only the Minmatar have a one system choke point that cant be avoided to get into FW space. How about Concord open a forgotten back door from the Rens area to FW Space? Great idea, but maybe have the the Republic ask for donations (in isk of course) from capsuleers to fund the BUILDING of a new stargate. Adds more of a roleplay flare to it.
NoLimit Soldier	Posted - 2011.07.28 16:06:00 - [1383] Originally by: Name Family Name the key is the part where it says 'within their own optimal'. Granted, I should have added +falloff in case of ACs.... On a side note, large Blasters don't out-track large ACs. On a side-side note, the top tier large blasters out track the top tier large autos. (0.0433 vs. .0432) (But yes the smaller ones are auto sided, but who uses 650s/Dual 425s?) I've seen a ton of people do well using blasters, I think you are just doing something wrong.
Beautiful Trader Gorgeous	Posted - 2011.07.28 20:27:00 - [1384] scan resolution to medium ships. It's very hard to catch same hull size ship with the natural scan res. for example a hac cant lock in time another hac.
Name Family Name	Posted - 2011.07.28 21:36:00 - [1385] Originally by: NoLimit Soldier Originally by: Name Family Name the key is the part where it says 'within their own optimal'. Granted, I should have added +falloff in case of ACs.... On a side note, large Blasters don't out-track large ACs. On a side-side note, the top tier large blasters out track the top tier large autos. (0.0433 vs. .0432) (But yes the smaller ones are auto sided, but who uses 650s/Dual 425s?) I've seen a ton of people do well using blasters, I think you are just doing something wrong. I've seen competitive use of blasters as well - three years ago. You're still missing the key: 0.0001 rad/sec better tracking and ~30% better optimal hardly compensate for 200% better falloff, capless guns with free choice of damage and the option to use tracking bonused ammo on ships with vastly superior mobility. Especially when using tracking enhancers which will boost falloff into oblivion. Now pulses track really bad compared to blasters, but trading 20% tracking and 20% falloff for 350% base optimal is not as bad as it sounds on paper. Lasers have plenty of other drawbacks though - especially the ships they're being typically used on having some cap-usage bonus on them, whereas AC ships (no cap needed at all) have another ROF/dmg bonus insead whilst using far less grid and CPU (mobility issues aside). Hence, Caldari aside, everyone uses Minmatar guns - they're even better on most Amarr and Gallente boats as well as the Ferox because you can fit a higher tier due to their low fitting requirements and all the other advantages. Projectiles need a massive nerf, blasters need a slight boost.
Malken Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2011.07.31 01:11:00 - [1386] 1. empire warfare/corphopping, need a timelimit on leaving and joining a corp while at war. 2. supercaps in lowsec, just ban supercaps from lowsec. 3. make 0.0 more accessible with multiple intersects into entry constellations from several empire areas.
Chris Cochrane The Knights Templar Strategic Operations Brigade	Posted - 2011.07.31 16:41:00 - [1387] To be honest, if they JUST added a 15KM boost to the Medium Class Blasters, A LOT of people would be happy with that, here's a post describing why I believe they should do this. linky
TheJacobiteHNTR	Posted - 2011.08.02 22:35:00 - [1388] Edited by: TheJacobiteHNTR on 02/08/2011 22:36:14 Edited by: TheJacobiteHNTR on 02/08/2011 22:35:47 1) Super Capitals in 0.0 sov warfare 2) Black ops, their lack of role 3) ewar frigs, they just aren't used Check my forum thread for my proposed suggestion for the first two :) http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1560472
SMT008	Posted - 2011.08.10 21:48:00 - [1389] Top 3 list ? - Uncatchable ships. A cruiser should be able to lock another cruiser before it warps. Simple as that. More inertia on all ships (but mostly angel ones) => More ship kills => Profit for everyone. - Hybrid weapons. Actually, my idea on that one would be to swap blasters and autocannons. Slow armor gallentes ships should have the range of autocannons and the damage of autocannons. Fast shield Minmatars ships should have the range of blasters, and the damage of blasters, and they will be able to use their speed to rush toward the target. - Black Ops battleships. CCP guys and regular EVE players, I encourage you to visit this thread and give feedback about it : Black Ops revamp
Andy Landen Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.11 00:40:00 - [1390] Originally by: Jovoich My one and only wish! Bring ECM in line with other EW. Remove the chance based factor. +1 ôThe world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.ö Albert Einstein

Meditril	Posted - 2011.08.12 12:22:00 - [1391] I strongly disagree with "SMT008". The fact that you currently can nano a Cruiser in such a way that you can avoid most Low-Sec gate camps should not be changed. We have enough blobbing enforcing mechanism in this game. You should not remove the few spaces where a solo player can avoid being blobbed. A solo player and a small nano gang should have chances to avoid slow boating blobs. Since we are forced to use gates the only way to "avoid" the blob in low-sec is to simply jump into it and warp away before they manage to get a lock on you. I would rather advocate for finally finding some how of balance mechanics which discourages blobbing. In 2D space this is usually automatically done by the fact that too many units on a small space start to hinder each other, suffer from friendly fire and are exposed to area of effect weapons. Such kind of mechanics is really needed for EVE.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: [one 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.

◕◡◕