In before I am accused of asking for tech 1 ships to be given universal skill bonuses.

I would like to see a ship hull, tech 2 variant or an added bonus to current logistic ships. That provide a boost to tracking links, sensor boosting and other factors. Even if it is just a range bonus.

So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships?

I never said that. However, I would prefer that Rise and Fozzie stick more to the racial "flavor" that's been around forever.

The goal of balancing should really be "rock/paper/scissors/falcon" ... and not making everyone the same.

Attack BC ... because they're designed by the individual races, and why would the Gallente build in bonuses to Amarr weapons (or alternatively, have the "technology" to do so).

Dessies - same reason as the BC.

So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships?

You pretty much shot your own thread down by saying this.

Why have racial distinctions at all?

Attack battlecruisers have a 95% reduction to powergrid and 50% reduction to CPU costs of the large turrets they have skill bonuses for. But why not enable them to fit all types of large turret?

I'll bite....why exactly would you trade in massive bonuses to damage and tracking on talos to run projectiles or lasers? To get damage or tracking in any amount you'd be gyro'd, te'd and tc'd the hell out. The minimal tank you have is now lower than glass cannon levels. A glass cannon that is still less dps than your racial gun.

You are looking at role bonuses, that means ship bonuses stay the same. It be these ship bonuses that actually matter. In the above tracking and damage are ship bonuses.

Also recheck your Role bonus for attack dessies....they are not universal chief. What good does a drone MWD speed ROLE bonus do to that massive drone bay capacity of a corax?

Sometimes using a weapon that doesn't cost capacitor or that has great tracking at mid-range is more important. If it's so not-overpowered, why are you so vehemently opposed to it?

Your point?

Attack destroyers, NOT combat destroyers. I'm talking about Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher.

All anyone has yet said in opposition to my idea can be summed up as follows:
1.) it adds too many options, therefore it is overpowered
2.) it adds only options that will never get used, therefore it is underpowered

tech 1 ships (which are supposed to be flexible)

Sometimes using a weapon that doesn't cost capacitor or that has great tracking at mid-range is more important. If it's so not-overpowered, why are you so vehemently opposed to it?

Your point?

Attack destroyers, NOT combat destroyers. I'm talking about Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher.

All anyone has yet said in opposition to my idea can be summed up as follows:
1.) it adds too many options, therefore it is overpowered
2.) it adds only options that will never get used, therefore it is underpowered

While your justification is why not the evermore present question of why do it at all looms over it, which you haven't answered.

Yes, you are correct--which is the basis for this post. I believe that some tech 1 ships are not as flexible as they should be.

Just think for a second how hard it would balance under a system that allows bonuses for ALL damage types and so on.

In before I am accused of asking for tech 1 ships to be given universal skill bonuses.

Logistics frigates and cruisers have range bonuses to their specific logistic module, but instead they could have a range bonus to all logistic modules - at least both remote armor repair and shield transfer, but maybe even remote sensor booster, tracking link, and remote ECCM.

Attack battlecruisers have a 95% reduction to powergrid and 50% reduction to CPU costs of the large turrets they have skill bonuses for. But why not enable them to fit all types of large turret?

Attack destroyers have 50% range bonus to the weapon they have skill bonuses for. Why not all small weapons?

Some examples

you have made all ECM/logistics frigates and cruisers all obsolete except for the ones that has the most CPU and has the most abount of high/mid slot combo.

Because it encourages racial diversity across ship types, it allows for the ship to be used under certain constraints and limitations, if this was limitation was removed then the ship that can fit the most DPS to tank ratio will be the ship that will be used all the time

because then the destroyers will now remove 90% of the frigates off the board as there are already frigates out there that get bonuses to that weapon system, if you give the bonus to destroyers as well....Well why fly a frigate when you can fly a destroyer that can fit many more turrets then the Frigates?

this is a tail tell sign that these examples are not limited to what you provided. This is why people are harping on your case, it cause they HAVE read your post, and many of them not only having the foresight of what will happen, but also explaining to you from experience what WILL happen under these new rules you provide.

You are claiming we have not read your post, but you must understand. We have read it, and we are telling you exactly what will happen.

Of course I have noticed that. My whole point is based around that. You could sum up my original post like so: "I believe that the role bonuses on several tech 1 ships do not fully serve their intended purpose."

On the contrary, you people have horribly limited vision of the effects of my proposal. You can't even comprehend it in all its simplicity. Most of you are still struggling to grasp the concept that I'm talking about role bonuses and not skill bonuses. I know beforehand what sort of useless banter I can expect to hear from you guys, and I tell you what you're going to say and why it's wrong, but you say it anyway, unable to see that I expected it.

You want a cheap E-war ship that can also be outfitted with DPS items?