Shooting high resist? No... Every T1 ship in the game and most T2 ships have 0% EM resist on shields, and 50% on armor. I will grant that this isnt great if it is an armor tanked ship, but every shield tanked ship other than Minmatar T2 ships are filling in the deepest resist hole possible with a module or rig or suffering withering damage with no resist. Thermal isn't much better, its low on both armor and shields except on a few T2 hulls. By no means are you always hitting high resist with lasers and unless they fit specifically against it you are tearing shields right off.

Nor is your tracking that bad. It is perfectly fine for you to pull a little range and actually use your weapons as designed. If you choose not to use them that way then that is pilot error and you probably should be looking at Caldari or Gallente hulls with bonuses to blasters. You know why blasters have such high tracking? Because the optimal on our longest range ammo is only 15k for battleship guns, and around 5k for high damage ammo... It would almost be easier to dock with the enemy ship and just stab the opposing pilot.

I did ignore the fact the shields have 0 EM resist. Why? 1) amarr as armour ships will be fighting other armour ships. (exept oracle maybe).

2) When you heve 0 resists u will plug tha hole. All shield ships get em hardener or at least a rig. An armour ship will rearly get an explosive specific resist module unless its galletne.

Range in PvP does not matter (that much). All ships fit MWD, AB, MJD. You have scramblers and webs. Fights happen on strgates, wormholes, station udocks, PoSe. You don't fight in open space. So tell we when do you need renge advantege, execept in the process of flying from one primary to another?

What ?

Well do don't have trouble using my lasers. I just fly both gallente and ammar and its much easier to apply dmg in PvP when using balsters. It's not a question if laser as good or bad. It's a question of if they are good or bad in comparison to other weapon systems. They are bad. Yes they need good piloting skills to get range/tracking right. That further reduces thier use.

I did ignore the fact the shields have 0 EM resist. Why? 1) amarr as armour ships will be fighting other armour ships. (exept oracle maybe). 2) When you heve 0 resists u will plug tha hole. All shield ships get em hardener or at least a rig. An armour ship will rearly get an explosive specific resist module unless its galletne.

Range in PvP does not matter (that much). All ships fit MWD, AB, MJD. You have scramblers and webs. Fights happen on strgates, wormholes, station udocks, PoSe. You don't fight in open space. So tell we when do you need renge advantege, execept in the process of flying from one primary to another?

we could

- add some variation to the signature of guns with the amarr having the smallest signature and the minmatar the biggest:
f.e. the heavy beam laser has a smaller sig than a 720mm Howitzer ii even though they are both medium sized

- variate the signature between the different sub- sizes in each class: f.e. 220mm AC has a smaller sig than 425mm AC

Edit:

We can keep the rail guns at the current signature size ( 40-100-400m), have the lasers a bit smaller ( 36-90-360 ) and the minmatar guns a bit larger ( 44-110-440m)


TLDR: Gun signature is a stat we can use to balance guns

I almost spat out my tea when I read that. Range is about the single most defining factor in the outcome of an engagement is it not?

So.... Your argument is that because lasers are not the absolute best weapon in every catagory and the perfect choice in every situation that they are bad?

Sorry, no. Blasters have huge paper dps, much less applied dps. At the ranges they can apply their dps they need those hull bonuses to tracking just to hit.... Kinda like that 'wasted' cap bonus that many Amarr hulls get. True, if you have enough support to set up the perfect environment blasters will do more damage... But that does not make them over all superior, and if you are commonly flying in fleets where that level of support exists, then I guess you should stick with the blasters.

The ships you face that filled in the EM hole that you choose to ignore.... You know what else you get to ignore? Whatever else they would have put in that slot.... like maybe a tracking disruptor, sensor dampener, any of several rigs that would have hurt you more... Who knows? You didnt have to face it because they had to fill the hole with an EM resist mod instead, or else you got to shoot into a deep resist hole and that is worth nothing to you somehow.

Every weapon has its drawback. If the drawback of lasers seems like too much, use something else you like better. Liking chocolate does not make vanilla bad, and liking hybrids does not make lasers bad.

Maybe do something other than PvE....

I don't even want to comment on that. EFT warriors and theory fighters are better left ignored... I don't say I'm right, but I do talk from my experience. If u chose to ignore the fact that shield fleet will simply disengage form a from with a comparable armour fleet or that shield ships thx to invu filed have sometimes higher worst resists then armour ships best resists then be my guest. I'm talking about competetive PvP where +/- equal forces duke it out. Where you have a competent support and your main goal is to punch trough enemy rr. When someones PvP experience is limited to killing solo raters or indy pilots than ya, lasers are great...

That is one situation. Try something other than Null-blob PvP. Lasers are perhaps not the best in *that* situation. As I said, if that is what you do, then choose the hull/weapon combo that best suits what you are doing.

That is one situation. Try something other than Null-blob PvP. Lasers are perhaps not the best in *that* situation. As I said, if that is what you do, then choose the hull/weapon combo that best suits what you are doing.

In science when u compare something all other factors must be constant. In blobs or whatever numbers are the primary factor. In WH combat when you have +/- equal numbers, equal ships, equal support - then u can compare the true effectiveness of each weapon system.

Really should be moving away from laser Legions you know.

HAM Legions get to pick damage type, still have excellent damage, OK range for the situations you use them in and don't have the same vulnerability to nuets.

The relatively small range is not a huge issue when nearly all fights are right on top of something.

This is exactly what is happening. All legions use either HAM or neuts now. But that just proves my point. Despite few pluses (I still prefer to use laser over missiles) lasers are just an inferior weapon system.

I'd take a laser legion over a HAM legion anywhere that's not completely dominated by close range brawls @ 20km or less in armor ships.

You know, like anywhere but WH on WH violence. WH's are great and all for a lot of things, but the meta is incredibly stagnate in regards to who fights who in what ship types where.

In a non Pulsar, it's nearly always armor t3's + Logi or Triage, +/- a few dreads if you feel like it. That sort of monoculture environment where all ships have naturally high resists towards EM is an absolutely terrible place to look exclusively at for determining game balance.

Frankly, before the rise of the Ishtar and the magnificence that is sentry drones, I considered lasers to be the best weapon system. High damage, ridiculous range using Scorch M on pulse lasers, and excellent damage types against any non minny t2 shield ship, with decent thermal damage against armor ships.

I still do. Sentry drones make pulse lasers look like the short fat kid on the playground, but it's still the best turret/missile medium weapon system imo. Just not when you need to kill 30 guys in supertanked armor ships at point blank range who brought nuets along.

With that I can agree. WH is a very specific are. With EM resists its not that simple as Proteus has a rather low EM resists, as well as Legions themselves. Still raw dps of Proteus is much better that pulse laser fire. As for Blobs I cannot say. What I know is that despite all you wrote in recent years meta game was rather focused on gallente and minmatar ships, which does not directly prove that laser are bad, but that weapon system (ship + turret) was considered rather inferior.

This wouldn't be EVE if the thread didn't go completely awryGǪ This was a straightforward proposal to adjust the damage type on T2 crystals only, but the consensus seems to be that the EM-Thermal bonus is fine. Which seems a bit odd, because I'm continually reading comments on how Amarr are pigeonholed to EM-Thermal, but I digress. I think this thread has run its course, so please lock. Thanks.

The cap reduction bonus on laser hulls is no more wasted than the tracking bonus on blaster hulls. Lasers need cap to fire more, Blasters need tracking to miss less because their optimal is only 5k on a battleship. This is also why Guardians get bonuses to cap transfer and Onerios get bonuses to remote Tracking links.

Every weapon has issues and ways of solving them.

Fair enough.

One thing though.

With tracking and falloff bonuses you are solving problems that are relevant only to those weapons systems nothing more, but with cap bonus it impacts your ship as a whole. You need your cap for propulsion, webs, points, reps if you have them, well pretty much everything and that makes you even more susceptible to neuts.

So, that is one hefty issues/drawback that other non laser ships don't have to deal with for the most part.
Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting to make lasers capless, but making them a little bit less cap hungry would not hurt. Same with t1 crystals don't make another Scorch or Aurora out of Radio but at least make it viable.