Proposed Projectile Ammo Change

Ive long found it annoying that projectile ammo has been handled as it has been in EVE.

The issue is with Titanium Sabot (I’ll be using T1 large projectile numbers):

Titanium Sabot L: 0% range bonus, +1.2 Tracking, 24 kinetic + 8 explosive damage.
Phased Plasma: -50% range bonus, 1x Tracking, 40 thermal + 8 kinetic.
Fusion: -50% range bonus, 1x Tracking bonus, 40 explosive + 8 kinetic.
EMP: -50% range bonus, 1x Tracking bonus, 36 EM + 4 kinetic + 8 explosive.

Because the other 3 base projectiles (phased plasma, Fusion and EMP) are all similar in range, tracking and raw dps, your fitting and combat style will reflect this pattern leaving you with an oddball projectile of Titanium Sabot where its range and tracking bonuses are largely wasted and the raw dps of Titanium Sabot (kinetic) is a lot lower than the other three base projectile types.

I’ll not be asking that Titanium Sabot be changed (because some will like it as it is) but rather that a new kinetic projectile be added to the game that follows the basic pattern set by phased plasma, emp, and fusion:

(Reykjavik L): -50% range bonus, 1x tracking, 40 kinetic + 8 explosive.


Add a new kinetic projectile to the game such that all four basic projectiles function similarly at similar ranges and with identical tracking, so that your engagement ranges and attack style can remain consistent across the four basic damage types.

(All four get -50% range and 1x Tracking):

Fusion L: 40 explosive + 8 kinetic
Phased Plasma L: 40 thermal + 8 kinetic
EMP L: 36 EMP + 4 kinetic + 8 explosive
(Reykjavik L): 40 kinetic + 8 explosive

1 Like

Projectiles are not meant to be universal damage types. That is missiles niche.

Projectiles are definitely not intended to be universal damage types and T2 ammo makes that clear.

With regards to stepping on missile boats universal damage types though, T1 and Faction projectiles already cover all four damage types, im just asking that the last one, kinetic, get similar treatment to the other three.

I’d rather have variants of EMP, PP and Fusion in T2 ammo…

Carbonized Lead = long range kinetic.
Proton = long range emp.
Nuclear = long range explosive.
so your request is just missing thermal ranged ammo. (the fact that no long range thermal ammo exists just increases my feeling that projectile ammo needs a looking into, its current state is somewhat bizarre).

As to the T2 request, I think CCP wouldn’t go for that one because it really would step on the toes of missile boats too much.

Thanks for the comments.

So… you don’t want universal damage types… you just want them to get the last damage type they don’t have… uh… go and read that again and think about it.

I don’t think projectiles need to cover kinetic with their high damage ammo type.

There are few situations i can think of where they can’t use one of the existing ammos and not be nearly as effective (except maybe mordus mammoths lol).

Depleted uranium is technically the longer range thermal variant. But its a 3 way damage split (therm/kin/explo).

Id actually like to see proton/nuclear changed into falloff bonused ammo. As their current bonuses are pretty useless in most engagements. Buff their dps a bit, bonus to falloff and split their damage like this:

Proton: em/kin/exp
Nuclear: therm/kin/explo

Then barrage would be kin/explo.

Granted proton/nuclear wouldnt have the same range bonuses as barrage, but could still be close. Since barrage takes away the whole “selectable” damage trait people claim acs to have when kiting, this would give ac kiting more options.

The smart thing for CCP to have done in my opinion is:

Have all four base ammo types
Have a module with varying tracking scripts which also impacts the DPS.

I like titanium sabot in theory due to the high tracking: in practice it doesn’t perform.

So you’re totally correct. Splendid idea.

I dont think you understad how projectile ammos are tiered, othervise you would not be comparing a medium range ammo to short range ones. I suggest you go read this and then update your topic acordingly.

Your topic would make sense if you were advocating for a third medium range ammo as there are only 2 of those and 3 of others. That I could get behind.

Just wondering if you could contribute to A Discussion on Autocannon Balance

1 Like


I appreciate your response but i dont understand this part of it. Gyrostabs cover DPS bonus so that is where my confusion is coming from, thanks.

I read the post, my opinion that this change would be good for EVE has not changed, but thanks for the post anyways.

I looked but chose to not respond.

Yeah np, just thought your’s and his ideas could be combined into one healthy discussion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Since I favor high damage, I don’t use those ammo types that much but your suggestion seems to hold merit and again makes me wonder about the entire structure of projectile ammo.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.