# Suggestion for more ship balancing **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [March 4, 2018, 3:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089 "2018-03-04T15:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 3:25pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/41 "2018-03-26T15:25:25Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > > [@elitatwo](#): > > > > With javelin hams, that rigor isn’t really necessary on the Drake Navy Issue, > > javelin do not give better application over standard/faction and those have better base damage Javelins give more range, so if youre kiting with hams and using javelin, youd have 38km range. Where the application bonus on the DNI helps those apply better (same application as precision heavies, about the same range too). Of course youd know what he was talking about if you actually flew drakes with HAMs or had any clue as to what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/42 "2018-03-26T15:31:22Z")
I like to build off application bonuses, makes missiles apply much better. It also compensates against things like halo/snake/xinstinct. Also, that extra rigor is very useful against inties. ---
**Author:** ![elitatwo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/elitatwo/32/373473_2.png) [@elitatwo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/elitatwo)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/43 "2018-03-26T15:52:12Z")
Oh that. Okay I can see your point. I bet you find those more in lowsec than nullsec. By the way and yes know it’s off topic but do you use party “crashers”? ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 5:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/44 "2018-03-26T17:18:46Z")
> [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > or even a cyclone as it has spare highs so do the drakes… i thought you flew these > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > T1 drake with 6 RLML and 3 t2 bcus does 305dps. A caracal does 335dps. Why are you using an rlml drake when a caracal does the job better? i forgot the only stat that mattered when deciding ships was dps silly me. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > KB shows you dont even use them. @elitatwo sry you need to stop using that scorp you see my kb says i don’t fly them so i have no idea what i’m talking about. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > Javelins give more range, oh and here i thought the rigor was an application rig silly me ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/45 "2018-03-26T18:06:19Z")
> so do the drakes… i thought you flew these “Highs”. Meaning plural of high, more than 1. Easier to fit 2 links when you have 2 available highs, rather than 1. Kindergarten math and grammar is hard. > forgot the only stat that mattered when deciding ships was dps silly me Silly for me that id think youd actually give a response of how/why you use them, instead of deflection. > [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > Oh and here i thought the rigor was an application rig silly me I see you lost yourself in your own argument again. I’ll give you some more time to see if you can pull your thoughts together. > sry you need to stop using that scorp you see my kb says i don’t fly them so i have no idea what i’m talking about. When the shoe fits… Its easier to take you seriously when you back up your claims with experience by showing fits, losses, wins or some form of proof that youre not just EFT warrioring. Cause RLML drakes are not some unique meta that makes you the basis of knowledge for drakes, youd get laughed out of any competent small gang, or die hilariously when solo. But keep on being an elite HS station camper with your 1400 nado and telling me how RLML drakes are the only way to fit them for application. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/46 "2018-03-26T18:25:31Z")
> [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > Easier to fit 2 links when you have 2 available highs, damn now you’re giving up a rig for application and an extra link? > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > Silly for me that id think youd actually give a response of how/why you use them, instead of deflection. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > I see you lost yourself in your own argument again. I’ll give you some more time to see if you can pull your thoughts together. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > youd get laughed out of any competent small gang, idk work pretty well in a small gang of RR drakes > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > or die hilariously when solo. there aren’t many ships that use RLML solo you couldn’t say this about not to mention you talk about better ships for situations and the drake is about the worst BC for solo > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > But keep on being an elite HS station camper with your 1400 nado … I… i have 4 kills like that all from yesterday. i think you put to much weight into the KB of a forum alt > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > just EFT warrioring please only scrubs use EFT pyfa for life. besides the paper stats of a RLML are ■■■■ practice is about the only time you can see its merits. i don’t care what you claim you are not Appling your dps even with a rigor and faction web to a frig. you are doing maybe 180dps to one of the fatter AB frigs ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/47 "2018-03-26T18:56:03Z")
> [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > there aren’t many ships that use RLML solo you couldn’t say this about > > not to mention you talk about better ships for situations and the drake is about the worst BC for solo Orthrus, scyfi, nosprey, bellicose, caracal, cerb, loki/tengu. So not all = not many, got it. The fact you think its the worst for solo proves its one of the best. Easy to get fights in and applies all its damage to everything that gets in scram range, plus a med neut to kill active tanks/props on frigs/t3ds. Its kinetic lock works against the current meta, which is pretty much all t2 minny and deals with most t1 resist ships no problem. If you only put a web and scram on your drake, youre going to have a bad time. > [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > Appling your dps even with a rigor and faction web to a frig. you are doing maybe 180dps to one of the fatter AB frigs You know frigs also use mwds too right? Where web+sig bloom and HM = dead frigate. I dont need to worry about an AB frig, he wont catch my HM fits. My HAM fits would and have killed any AB frigate that gets close. > [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > KB of a forum alt Oh, well then that explains all our conversations. You just hide behind an alt making rediculous claims that you never have to back up with evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2018, 7:28pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/48 "2018-03-26T19:28:22Z")
… none of those ships fare well solo going up against cruisers or larger i was talking about the HAM application were you trying to defend HM application 0.o? unless you are in null most frigs that would be in web range are ab fit any mwd frig that got into web range died because the pilot was an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Alopex-Lagopus](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/alopex-lagopus/32/407823_2.png) [@Alopex-Lagopus](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Alopex-Lagopus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 12:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/49 "2018-03-28T12:04:15Z")
Figured this might fit here. Let’s see… CCP ship classes go something like this if I’m not mistaken. Corvette Frigate Destroyer Cruiser Battlecruiser Battleship Caps Aircraft carrier AKA Carriers Dreadnoughts? 😕 Force Auxiliaries Super Caps Supercarriers Titans… IRL I think a list would go something more like. Sloop-of-war/Patrol boat/Fast attack craft = Lesser ships than the CCP Corvette at present. > **[Sloop-of-war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloop-of-war)** > > In the 18th century and most of the 19th, a sloop-of-war in the Royal Navy was a warship with a single gun deck that carried up to eighteen guns. The rating system covered all vessels with 20 guns and above; thus, the term sloop-of-war encompassed all the unrated combat vessels, including the very small gun-brigs and cutters. In technical terms, even the more specialised bomb vessels and fireships were classed as sloops-of-war, and in practice these were employed in the sloop role when not carryi... > **[Fast attack craft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_attack_craft)** > > A fast attack craft (FAC) - also referred to as a PTG or a PCG - is a small, fast, agile, offensive, often affordable warship armed with anti-ship missiles, gun or torpedoes. FACs are usually operated in close proximity to land as they lack both the seakeeping and all-round defensive capabilities to survive in blue water. The size of the vessel also limits the fuel, stores and water supplies. Their displacements are usually under-700 tons and can reach speeds of 25+ knots or 46+ kph. > A fast at... > **[Patrol boat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boat)** > > A patrol boat (also referred to as a patrol craft, patrol ship, or patrol vessel) is a relatively small naval vessel generally designed for coastal defence, border security, or law enforcement. There are many designs for patrol boats, and they generally range in size. They may be operated by a nation's navy, coast guard, police, or customs, and may be intended for marine ("blue water"), estuarine ("green water"), or river ("brown water") environments. > Per their name, patrol boats are primarily u... Corvette > **[Corvette](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette)** > > A corvette is a small warship. It is traditionally the smallest class of vessel considered to be a proper (or "rated") warship. The warship class above the corvette is that of the frigate, while the class below was historically that of the sloop-of-war. > The modern roles that a corvette fulfills include coastal patrol craft, missile boat and fast attack craft. These corvettes are typically between 500 and 2,000 tons. Recent designs of corvettes may approach 3,000 tons and include a hangar to ac... Frigate - Which is used for quite a few types of ships actually. > **[Frigate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate)** > > A frigate (/ˈfrɪɡət/) is a type of warship. In different eras, the roles and capabilities of ships classified as frigates have varied. > The name frigate in the 17th to early 18th centuries was given to any full-rigged ship built for speed and manoeuvrability, intended to be used in scouting, escort and patrol roles. The term was applied loosely to ships varying greatly in design. In the second quarter of the 18th century, the 'true frigate' was developed in France. This type of vessel was char... Destroyer > **[Destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer)** > > In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort > larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats. They were originally conceived in 1885 by Fernando Villaamil for the Spanish Navy as a defense against torpedo boats, and by the time of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, these "torpedo boat destroyers" (TBDs) were "large, swift, and powerfully armed torpedo boats designed to des Bef... Destroyer tender > **[Destroyer tender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_tender)** > > A destroyer tender or destroyer depot ship is a type of depot ship: an auxiliary ship designed to provide maintenance support to a flotilla of destroyers or other small warships. The use of this class has faded from its peak in the first half of the 20th century as the roles and weaponry of small combatants have evolved (in conjunction with technological advances in propulsion reliability and efficiency). > As the industrial revolution progressed, steam-powered steel ships replaced sail-powered wo... Auxiliary ship - Frigate designation > **[Auxiliary ship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_ship)** > > An auxiliary ship is a naval ship designed to support combatant ships and other naval operations. Auxiliary ships are not primary combatant vessels, though they may have some limited combat capacity, usually for purposes of self-defense. > > Auxiliary ships are extremely important for navies of all sizes because if they were not present the primary fleet vessels would be unsupported. Thus, virtually every navy maintains an extensive fleet of auxiliary ships, however, the composition and size of the... Protected cruiser > **[Protected cruiser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_cruiser)** > > Protected cruisers, a type of cruising warship of the late-19th century, gained their description because an armoured deck offered protection for vital machine-spaces from fragments caused by shells exploding above them. Protected cruisers resembled armored cruisers which had in addition a belt of armour along the sides. By the early 20th century, with the advent of increasingly lighter yet stronger armour, even smaller vessels could afford some level of both belt and deck armour. In the place ... Armored cruiser > **[Armored cruiser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_cruiser)** > > The armored cruiser was a type of warship of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was designed like other types of cruisers to operate as a long-range, independent warship, capable of defeating any ship apart from a battleship and fast enough to outrun any battleship it encountered. > For many decades, naval technology had not advanced far enough for designers to produce a cruiser that combined an armored belt with the long-range and high speed required to fulfill its mission. For this rea... Auxiliary ship - Frigate designation Yes again for tending larger ships. Battlecruiser > **[Battlecruiser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser)** > > The battlecruiser (also written as battle cruiser or battle-cruiser) was a type of capital ship of the first half of the 20th century. These were similar in displacement, armament and cost to battleships, but differed in form and balance of attributes. Battlecruisers typically had thinner armour (to a varying degree) and a somewhat lighter main gun battery than contemporary battleships, installed on a longer hull with much higher engine power in order to attain greater speeds. The first battlec... In no way should a Battleship be faster than a Battlecruiser. Pre-dreadnought battleship > **[Pre-dreadnought battleship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-dreadnought_battleship)** > > Pre-dreadnought battleships were sea-going battleships built from the mid- to late- 1880s to the early 1900s. Their designs were conceived before the appearance of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 and their classification as "pre-dreadnought" is retrospectively applied. In their day, they were simply known as "battleships" or else more rank-specific terms such as "first-class battleship" and so forth. The pre-dreadnought battleships were the pre-eminent warships of their time and replaced the ironclad... Dreadnought - Witch is still a Battleship mind you. > **[Dreadnought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought)** > > The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century. The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's HMS Dreadnought, had such an effect when launched in 1906 that similar battleships built after her were referred to as "dreadnoughts", and earlier battleships became known as pre-dreadnoughts. Her design had two revolutionary features: an "all-big-gun" armament scheme, with an unprecedented number of heavy-calibre guns, and steam turbine propulsion.\[a\] As dreadnoughts becam... ((Caps)) Escort carrier > **[Escort carrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_carrier)** > > The escort carrier or escort aircraft carrier (U.S. hull classification symbol CVE), also called a "jeep carrier" or "baby flattop" in the United States Navy (USN) or "Woolworth Carrier" by the Royal Navy, was a small and slower type of aircraft carrier used by the Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, the United States Navy, the Imperial Japanese Navy and Imperial Japanese Army Air Force in World War II. They were typically half the length and a third the displacement of larger fleet carriers, ... Dreadnought - ((Re-classify as something else)) Siege engine or Bomb vessel) > **[Bomb vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_vessel)** > > A bomb vessel, bomb ship, bomb ketch, or simply bomb was a type of wooden sailing naval ship. Its primary armament was not cannons (long guns or carronades) – although bomb vessels carried a few cannons for self-defence – but mortars mounted forward near the bow and elevated to a high angle, and projecting their fire in a ballistic arc. Explosive shells (also called bombs at the time) or carcasses were employed rather than solid shot. Bomb vessels were specialized ships designed for bombarding (h... Force Auxiliaries [https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Force\_Auxiliaries](https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Force_Auxiliaries) Then we start on the Super caps. Supercarriers AKA: Fleet carrier > **[Fleet carrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_carrier)** > > A fleet carrier is an aircraft carrier designed to operate with the main fleet of a nation's navy. The term was developed during World War II, to distinguish it from the escort carrier and other less capable types. In addition to many medium-sized carriers, supercarriers, as well as some light carriers, are also classed as fleet carriers. > Aircraft carriers were designed in the years between World War I and World War II. Flight decks were installed on several different types of ships to explore t... Titans [https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Titans](https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Titans) With a larger and more sensible line up of vessels, Combined with more number room. This should allow ships to be balanced properly and more properly fit into there proper places. The links are to show IRL classes of ships that exist or did exist and could therefore be integrated into the game without much confusion. If you buff certain ships, they are cancer, if you nerf them in any way they suck and no one wants to play them and CCP has a serious problem balancing ANYTHING. So lets simplify things. 🙂 You wont even have to rename everything and change all the classes, just a few and add a few more. This along with increasing the numbers involved may make balance more possible. Say x2 or x4 damage, armor, shields, hull across the board on all ships. So by multiplying everything by 4, that will make anything OP stand out more and anything under powered glaringly so, simplifying the balance location issue, identification process and make addressing the issue simpler. If I recall correctly, larger numbers are easier to work with than smaller numbers and decimals. Allowing for flat rounded numbers to be used in place of decimals and still leave room for balancing changes. I could be wrong though. 100 x 4 = 400 Translates 10.5 x 4 = 42 Decimals could still be used, but would be less necessary. This would allow for more room to evaluate ships balance and give ships there specializations without making everything nearly the same or way OP or way under powered. I personally think CCP is trying to cram balance into numbers that are too small for the variations of ships in this game and the answer may be a combination of increasing the numbers to work with and the number of ship classes to streamline the game. Having a few ships fulfill too many rolls means that they can do everything, if they can do everything it makes it harder to limit what they are intended to do. People will always use ships outside there intended purpose, but chop into there multi roll capability and have designated multi roll ships and specialized ships before adding T2, etc and you have balance. Add T2+ for higher quality ships of a class instead of T2+ for the specialized class and balance becomes easier, while giving T2+ ships there meta bonus, etc. > [@Make Battleships Great Again](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/make-battleships-great-again/52408/157): > > Tieing RL navel classifications to space ships don’t always work. Also many of the “roles” you posted are already in game, they are the tech 2 versions. (They named different to throw off people) Then use IRL naming classifications and use T2 variants of the IRL variants to give more depth and strategic value. Higher quality ships (T2) = Better ships. Simple. ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/50 "2018-03-28T15:15:03Z")
Orthrus doesnt fair well against cruisers? What game are you playing? You realize its potential clip damage is enough to erase nearly any t1 cruiser and most active tanked cruisers as well right? Some tankier or high buffer fit ships, sure, cant do it in one magazine, but it has superior range control over most everything thanks to long scrams, so it can take its time if needed. Yes, encounters exist outside lowsec, dont be so narrow minded. Even against an AB frig, my HAM drake will cripple it and apply well over 180dps. ABs dont work well when theyre double webbed and dont have cap. My HML DNI will kill frigs with an MWD under web due to sig bloom. So in either scenario it will outperform a RLML drake. As you elaborated some on your fit (using RR), no, my drake would not be good for RR, what its good at is killing ships in scram range and leaving a cloud of dead frigates and cruisers behind it (or get overwhelmed by a blob, but such is life when solo). There is nothing wrong with solo drakes, if they dont suit you, thats fine. But touting the RLML fit as the only way to get application out of them and claiming its the best way to fit them is dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/51 "2018-03-29T19:12:11Z")
> [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > Orthrus doesnt fair well against cruisers? yeah the balanced legion is super balanced and no the only scenario it out preforms a rlml drake is when the idiot is mwding after it some how let itself get double webbed by one of the slowest BC ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 8:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/52 "2018-03-29T20:34:04Z")
Gotta be in scram range to scram. How else do you propose tackling something with a frigate that isnt scram bonused? Hurt their feelings in local so they dont just simply warp away? My drake uses a scram, so their mwd is off, no sig bloom. Try again on rationalizing your error. Also, MJDs are a thing, so long pointing wont tackle a bc/bs that has one. This forces the person im facing into scram range to scram me. Otherwise ill leave and continue harassing them. Something, something, drake cant apply to AB frigates [Dead AB frigate](https://zkillboard.com/kill/57614246/) [Heavy missiles dont apply](https://zkillboard.com/kill/60563077/) [RLML definitely best option, no other choices available](https://zkillboard.com/kill/60618166/) A good chunk of my KB is full of frig kills using a drake. I have videos using that same drake to farm frigate kills. You can deny it all you want, the HAM drake i use can and will apply well over 180dps to frigates. ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 12:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/53 "2018-03-30T00:37:34Z")
> [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > My HML DNI will kill frigs with an MWD under web due to sig bloom. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > My drake uses a scram, so their mwd is off, no sig bloom. Try again on rationalizing your error. … ---
**Author:** ![Stitch\_Kaneland](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/stitch_kaneland/32/380745_2.png) [@Stitch\_Kaneland](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Stitch_Kaneland)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 2:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/54 "2018-03-30T02:15:43Z")
> [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > Even against an AB frig, my **HAM** drake will cripple it and apply well over 180dps. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > My **HML** DNI will kill frigs with an MWD under web due to sig bloom. > [@Stitch\_Kaneland](#): > > So in either scenario it will outperform a RLML drake > [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](#): > > and no the only scenario it out preforms a rlml drake is when the idiot is mwding after it some how let itself get double webbed by one of the slowest BC Try to read the _whole_ post before you respond, i know reading comprehension is hard, but we can get through this. Its your own fault for not specifying which fit specifically you were talking about. My HML fit doesnt have dual webs, only HAM fit. I know you love being vague as it muddy’s the water and makes it easier for you derail things when facts get in the way, but being specific is good when you want to try to disprove something when multiple fits/scenarios exist. Side Note: Looking at damage graphs at a worst case scenario (AB dram), an RLML fit under 1 web applies 213 dps (122 dps w/o web), my HAM fit applies 200dps. If i add crash, then i’m going up to 252 applied. Tbh though, its not really worth using crash, the medium neut on my fit will turn off his AB in short order and then i’m applying 300dps before crash. Which is exactly the dps you’d be applying with an RLML fit at max application. So want to tell me again how inferior HAMs are to RLML? ---
**Author:** ![Alopex-Lagopus](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/alopex-lagopus/32/407823_2.png) [@Alopex-Lagopus](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Alopex-Lagopus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 2:46pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/55 "2018-03-30T14:46:32Z")
> [@Make Battleships Great Again](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/make-battleships-great-again/52408/209): > > 1083.5 1265.25 600.75 823.62 x4= 4334 5061 2403 3294.48 You can reduce the amount of decimals needed and round up or down to eliminate the decimal altogether, now that you have more breathing room. 3294.48 rounded 3294 or 3294.5 Not so cripplingly nerfed or noticed. Simple Neat Clean ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Eichendorf](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dr_eichendorf/32/476846_2.png) [@Dr\_Eichendorf](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dr_Eichendorf)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 3:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/56 "2018-04-24T15:16:06Z")
Have you ever tried fighting a Garmur with a distruptor and a scram fitted? they still can scram up to 20km making the dramiel useless, so I still think that the Garmur needs at least a small nerf similar to the Orthrus And why do you think that the Zealot doesn’t need a dronebay? To be an easy target for frigs? Then you should ask yourself why CCP added drones to the Eagle? ---
**Author:** ![Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugh_crow-slave/32/441552_2.png) [@Lugh\_Crow-Slave](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugh_Crow-Slave)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 10:26am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/57 "2018-04-26T10:26:53Z")
> [@Dr\_Eichendorf](#): > > Then you should ask yourself why CCP added drones to the Eagle? so that it wasn’t 100% out classed by the onyx and is now has at least a small chance of running away with ECs? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/4/1/41ec4921cbaca7a6f9ea556e7cc20018461eae5e.png) [@system](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 10:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089/58 "2018-07-25T10:31:19Z")
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/suggestion-for-more-ship-balancing/61089.md?page=2)