LOL, yeah, you do 
I appreciate it.
Cypr3ss.
One of the main problems with boosting Minmatar-related weapons is the big risk of once again turning the race into ‘Winmatar’ i.e. making the race overpowered. Autocannons really wouldn’t need much boosting before everyone prefers Minmatar as the only race’s ships to fly, like in yesteryear. Remember that Minmatar ships are the fastest in the game, a game where speed-tanking is better than actual tanking. Crossing the line with their main weapon means Winmatar all over again.
I agree with a lot of what has been said so far about Autocannons, in that it’s mainly a range problem rather than a dps problem. Either adding 25-50% Optimal Range or 20% falloff to Autocannons (not both) would probably solve any perceived balance issues. It would also be very straightforward for CCP to carry out, and therefore not take up much dev time.
As a Caldari pilot I am also conscious of other weapons in EvE needing a rebalance, most of all Torpedoes, so I hope CCP doesn’t just look at Autocannons.
1 Like
Heavies are also under-performing a bit, and rapid lights over performing.
I feel like heavies are okayish, but I lack experience in that field.
Well now it will be also an Autocannon gimmick 
One thing to keep in mind is that “Winmatar” of yesteryear were competitive because almost every other ship/race had underperforming ships (except the drake/HML). The EVE meta is very different compared to 2012 and before. RLML’s were not burst launchers like they are now, lasers/hybrids were very weak and most ships were not very well balanced or focused on a role. All that has changed now along with tiericide and numerous ship rebalances/additions.
I can tell you now, that the old “winmatar” meta of vagabonds, cynabals and hurricanes, if were enacted with the exact same stats as yesteryear would just barely be as competitive as any other offering today.
Of course, we don’t want power creep either, but i don’t think you need to worry about winmatar making a comeback if autocannons (mainly medium a/c’s) get buffed.
HML/HAM could use minor application tweaking. Torpedoes need a 8-10% fitting reduction and base range of 30km (at max skills). They’re still quite usable though, just hard to fit on some ships and maintain a semblance of tank.
3 Likes
Awesome piece of analysis! Appreciate the in depth look at the numbers 
It’s also worth noting that at the time the capacitors of most ships was significantly lower than current, meaning that the neuts that Minmatar ships could utilise as a result of their utility highs + low Auto fitting had drastically more combat impact, being able to incapacitate capitals en masse as in the WelpCane fit - Or to deal with tackle, as the SFI/Cynabal/Vagabond did.
3 Likes
Autocannons can select their damage and that is an incredible advantage. If they end up having the same application/dps as the other weapon systems they will be overpowered.
1 Like
Drones and missiles also have selectable damage and can project their damage considerably farther than autocannons.
No one is saying to buff their optimal to that of Heavy Missile range. Acs are all falloff, after the TE nerf (which acs are built around TEs), they took a severe range nerf just to fix blaster kite talos’. Simply put, they need more falloff to even be competitve in the meta.
Selectable damage means nothing when missiles and drones exist and get much better application/damage than ac’s ever could.
2 Likes
Something else I would add, is that we should probably wait to see how the ‘Tech 2 Ammo loading into Faction Weapons’ change pans out before CCP starts looking at weapon rebalance again, as this could potentially make some turrets/launchers more desirable then others and change the whole balance equation.
I personally am looking forward to putting Tech 2 Rage torps into Faction/Officer Launchers 
I think it’s only better for the faction launchers, which thus will gain a small(<3% for small, 5% for rapid small) DPS increase over the T2launchers (for caldari/guristas launchers). The faction turrets have a lower multiplier than the T2 multiplier.
Isn’t there also a fitting and clip size benefit for the faction turrets/launchers too?
IIRC the clip lasts just as long. the increase in fare rite is the same as thein crease in clip size.
In the event of sharing point of views, here’s another thread aligned to your Op @Jin_taan Proposed Projectile Ammo Change.
1 Like
I would say that heavies have their niche - they are excellent at shredding bc and cruiser sized things, while posing extremely potent threat to destroyers and even frigs (thx to rof).
I did run covert besieged complexes in armor tanked rhml praxis and can’t complain about performance - and they do pose threat in pvp as well.
I wouldn’t say that they are under-performing. As for rapid lights - they are not that great either. It is ships that use them - mainly caracal, caracal navy and cerberus that are overperforming.
I can already do that with missiles - which are way better than autocannons at dealing dps while still being able to project.
but missiles consume lotsa CPU.
unless you fit rapid …
They have very little fitting costs and it makes it extremely hard to be tackled by anything since they turn tackle to dust in a few seconds, if they dropped ammo per clip down to lower the burst then at least there is some slim chance of it being tackled and I don’t mean by a gang of 5 ramjag’s as jag’s themselves are overpowered and require a speed nerf.
And lower pg requirements. Not as much of an issue as people make it of - for pvp most missile boats are already armor tanked (including ravens and coraxes). As for pve - praxis and typhoon are armor tanks. HAMs have low fitting costs, heavies are not an issue as well. It is only lights on dessies and torps that have heavy fitting requirements. Cruise cpu use is only minimally higher than rhml…