(73 replies, posted in Balancing)



(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

You havn't tested much have You?

I could have debunk all You said but I'm done arguing Theory vs Fantasy.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Thats a cool story. But I have another one.

A 6-tuning Joe took a vaga friend with double RSA and rolled over everyone else.

The End.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Mroq wrote:

If 2xSA makes You vulnerable to ECM then we are done talking.

Line wrote:

It doesn't. Heavy Mechs are ALREADY vulnerable with their 85 Ew Strength

With less than 3s lock time, close to rate of fire - knock yourself out with ECMs.

Mroq wrote:

Do you want to know how much more dps were mesmers doing over seths with gauss before both tuning patches? 5.13%
How much more DPS were Seths doing with lasers over mesmers? 42.42%

Line wrote:

Seths were doing more DPS with Gausses than Mesmers even at time when we had Epriton on gammas. Are you sure you played the game before this patch?

I'm not sure how 3% crit, 7.5% dmg and 7.5% rof from +1 tuning is better than 10%dmg and 10% rof from racial tho. Your maths are astonishing. Please share Your patterns.

Mroq wrote:

1. Tunings cant be more than racial bonus (unless point 2 and 3). (+10% damage and -10% cycle time = 22.22% dps increase)

Line wrote:

currently tunings doesn't affect cycle time

No they don't. But racial bonuses do as is stated above and calculated to raw %. Reading comprehension recommended.

Mroq wrote:

2. Blue combats need -1 leg and +1 head slot. And this is not a very recent issue.

Line wrote:

with that, they will become OP because magnetic weapons are already having the biggest Alpha. the only reason Seths are better is because 1 extra tuning they can fit

Becouse alpha damage is the only stat needed. Screw dps, screw range, screw ehp. Alpha FTW!

Mroq wrote:

4. Active repping fits are unviable again.

Line wrote:

oh god they nerfed ERP-tank again lol

Never used ERP and probably never will. Where did I mention ERP again?

Mroq wrote:

5. PvE is really fun now so I wouldn't go down on DPS all that much.

Line wrote:

It became as easy as it was before previous balance patch

Yeah, becouse 4 times more damage is only just as good.

Mroq wrote:

6. Please stop going from one extreme to another.

Line wrote:

it's not extreme, it's not even bad, it's just you too excited of maths and the numbers

2 shoting observers is totally the right amount of DPS. I never said its bad, I am personally loving the whole change. It is unbalanced tho.

Mroq wrote:


Line wrote:

practical experiments showed that having more than 3 tunings doesn't worth unless youre in a big party. but even then it's more or less counterable.

Wow, You must have done hours of practical experiments since yesterday.

Line wrote:

such a Seth with 6x tunings and LCL lasers (not even Gauss) does one-shot NPC mechs up to 3lvl (didn't had anything bigger nearby), but it goes completely dry in just 5 shots. so to feel comfortable you would need something like 2 support bots with 4+ energy transferers each, probably giving you RSA as well, and probably an another support bot with remote repairs. Such a Seth, on other hand, can be double-supressed by a Zenith to negate RSA effect, and then perma-jammed by a Vagabond. one extra Vagabond can deal with support bots.

does that worth it - to brin such a Seth? I doubt so. Well, maybe for base sieges.

so in most cases ppl wolud fit up to 2-3 tunings which is ok.

Nope, You clearly didn't.

Line wrote:

also to fix that Seth stronger than Mesmer I would suggest to allow only fit just racial and syndicate tunings on bot

also to make Mroq calm down, I would suggest to limit number of tunings equipped by 2-3 max

Yay limits. That solves stuff! We need limits, more limits! Lets go all the way and make robots have perma fits.

Mroq wrote:

On an end note:
If one does not comprehend mathematics one should not post in topics involving numbers.

Line wrote:

Maths are on paper. bots are on field. whatever you theoretized here we can reproduce

Field? What field? Oh you mean those computed pixels on a screen that use patterns and calculations to move and shoot each other? Wait... Are you saying computers started using different - better mathematics?! RUN! EVERYONE RUN!


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

[EDIT to the post above] If 2xSA makes You vulnerable to ECM then we are done talking.

I am not going to wait few days as I promissed - sorry! Fun facts:

Kain 4 firearms tunings + 4 autocannons = 4 x 1623.08% = 6492.32%
Vagabond 6 firearms tunings + 3 autocannons = 3 x 2691.81% = 8075.43%

Next time you see them Ewar mechs go solo - BEWARE!
Similar thing happens with cameleon vs yagel. Its even comparable to arbalest for crying out loud.

Mesmer MK2 5 magno tunings + 6 gauss guns = 6 x 3162.41% = 18974.46%
Seth MK2 6 magno tunings + 6 gauss guns = 6 x 4111.13% = 24666.78%

So who screamed the loudest that Mesmers are OP?

Do you want to know how much more dps were mesmers doing over seths with gauss before both tuning patches? 5.13%
How much more DPS were Seths doing with lasers over mesmers? 42.42%

1. Tunings cant be more than racial bonus (unless point 2 and 3). (+10% damage and -10% cycle time = 22.22% dps increase)
2. Blue combats need -1 leg and +1 head slot. And this is not a very recent issue.
3. With lowest head slot count syndicate combats are bad, really bad. (they were ok when tunings were utterly useless just before this patch). I would go with more headslots on par with others and lower leg slots to make them more squishy becouse its not MK2.
4. Active repping fits are unviable again.
5. PvE is really fun now so I wouldn't go down on DPS all that much.
6. Please stop going from one extreme to another.

Considering recent PvE experience and points above (head slots equality! work places for nuimqol!):
(Power of module% / accumulator usage%)

Enwar tunings:
T0 = 10/15
T1/T2 = 15/15
T3 = 15/10
T4 = 25/25

Industrial tunings:
T0 = 10/20
T1/T2 = 20/20
T3 = 20/10
T4 = 30/30

Repair tunings:
T0 = 10/20
T1/T2 = 20/10
T3 = 20/0
T4 = 40/20

Weapon tunings:
T0 = 10/20
T1/T2 = 20/20
T3 = 20/10
T4 = 30/30


Current damage per accumulator of T4 weapons:
Light missiles: 40
Light laser: 5
Light EM: 4.8
Light AC: 18

Medium compact: 60
MEdium ballistic: 40
LCL: 2.5
HCL: 2
Gauss: 2.4
Medium EM: 1.33
Medium AC and MG used to be both 18 can't bother to calc how it is now as most posters here don't bother comprehending anyway and it seems balanced toward each other now.

Should be (acc use per shot this time to make things harder for some):
Light missiles: 4
Light lasers: 4
Light EM: 4
Light AC: 2

Medium launcher: 10
HCL: 12
LCL: 10
Gauss: 10
Medium EM: 12 (becouse before was WTF!)
Medium AC and MG: x2 of current

I will also post a difference between 40% and 30% bonus with 6 tuners equipped:
753% vs 482% (2 shots to kill unplated heavies and mechs then).

On an end note:
If one does not comprehend mathematics one should not post in topics involving numbers.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

I dont go out solo in heavies. They are not meant for such purpose.

Single Vaga support with dual remote sensor and that assault and whatever else came along is gone before able to jump the teleport back.

And if we are talking solo counters then dual sensor amp and 2 stabilisers and that assault is in the world of pain.

It is so easy to point counter fits.

[EDIT] A very, very similar game is called "spreadsheets in space" for a reason.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

With 15m dispersion and 3m surface on assault I got 20% chance to hit. Unless plated (and therefore easier to hit) that 1 gun hit will kill it. With 6 guns (each having 20% chance to hit) I have 73.79% chance for a single gun to connect.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:

theorycrafting and "what-if" stuff doesn't really work.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of knowledge.



(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

[EDIT] Or you know what.. I am not going to compare and calculate. Well too tired/sleepy for that. Going to come back after a few days of this mayhem and see if you figured out some really OP possibilities by then.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:

Just FYI: 1139% DMG isn't "one shot" even for Mesmer. Practice, my friend, practice!

Thing about maths is you are either right or wrong.

Mesmer alpha dmg : 52 x 588% x 6 x 759% = 13924.31

Am I wrong?


SETH MK2, 6 firearms tunings, 6 machine guns.

(42 x 245.7% x 6 x 1139%) / 2.14s = 3295.46 DPS
(2 x 6 x 2414%) / 2.14s = 135.36 acc per second
6880 AP / 22.56 = 50.83s (not including acc regen)
3295.46 x 50.83 = 167508.23 damage before it runs dry (again if for some reason acc regen got turned off)


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

does it really matter if the efficiency goes below a factor of 1?

  It would matter for every fight that lasts more than few seconds. Remember that efficiency ratios scale exponentially.

  With 50% dmg increase 6 tunings would increase DMG to 1139% how many robots can survive a volley like that from heavy mech? Accumulator consumption 170%^6 would be 2413% so it would probably be a "one shot wonder" build.

  Now dont get me wrong. I'm all up for having a "killall" robot 1 shooting stuff and running to a group of energy transfer "buddies" for refill. Group of shooters taking out first few targets before the battle even begins. I'd love to have a bunch of heavies on teleports sweeping anyone who decides to have a peak. But will it help the balance?

  PvE now is kind of weird. You let them high end npc shoot a few times and then they just sit there shooting a single gun every now and then.

  I also have to say that i like how current situation encouraged active tanking builds and variety of head slots. Weapon tunings needed rebalance not removal tho.

  Another thing that I would like to point out (that became prominent with recent changes) is the difference in efficiency between small and medium modules. With such drastic tuning changes we might begin to see heavies with light weapons (we already use small miners, harvesters and repairers).


(0 replies, posted in Balancing)

Set of ideas for T3 modules. Percentages are proportional to existing at the moment.


1. Armor plates.

25% Hit surface penalty
75% Mass

2. Armor repairers.

40% repair ammount
50% cycle time
30% accumulator consumption

3. Remote armor repairers.

50% repair ammount
50% cycle time
30% accumulator consumption
50% range

4. Universal armor hardeners

50% Mass

5. Active(specific) armor hardeners

80% Active resistance
240% Passive resistance
50% Accumulator consumption

6. Lightweight frames

66% Mass reduction
30% Demobilizer resistance penalty


1. Shield generators

50% Mass

2. Shield hardeners

50% Mass


1. Energy transferers

60% transfered energy
20% activation cost
50% cycle time
50% range

2. Energy drainers

60% drained ammount
20% activation cost
50% cycle time
50% range

3. Energy neutralizers

60% neutralised ammount
50% activation cost
50% cycle time
50% range

4. Accumulator rechargers

25% Mass

5. Coreactor

50% TF cost
50% Mass

6. Auxillary accumulators

50% Mass

7. Energy injectors

20% Charge capacity
50% Cycle time

8. Evasive modules

75% surface hit size
250% demobilizer resistance

9. ERP

70% specific main recovery
200% 2 lowest recoveries
150% chemical recovery

10. Reactor sealing

50% Mass


1. Sensor amplifiers

50% locking range
150% locking time

2. Remote sensor amplifiers

50% locking range
180% locking time
50% optimal range

3. Cargo scanner

50% optimal range
33% cycle time

4. Chassis scanner

50% optimal range
33% cycle time

5. Coprocessor

0% RP cost

6. Range extenders

50% Mass

7. Signal Detector

200% Signal masking modification
50% Acc consumption

8. Signal Masker

50% Mass

9. Target marker

200% masking modification
50% optimal range


1. Demobilizers

75% range
125% top speed modification

2. ECM

125% EW strength
50% range

3. Sensor suppressor

125% EW strength
150% locking time penalty
50% locking range penalty
50% optimal range


50% Mass


1. Miner and harvester modules

50% Accumulator consumption

2. Geoscanners

50% range
175% strength


75% Range
50% Accumulator consumption


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

well, that depends on your idea of efficiency. beeing kill targets faster always was more efficient, since you didn'T have to use your accumulator for repairs.

Point taken. Would increase 18%/15% to 18%/18% (or maybe even 20%/20%?) on T4 becouse of it. No efficiency change (and no penalty).

logicalNegation wrote:

...There is no reason to choose to adversely affect the accumulator, vs any other system on the robot...

T3 with 12%/5% are very similar in acc efficiency as tunings before the changes. Old T4 were 19.2%/7.5% (*).
2.4:1 on proposed T3 vs 2.56:1 on old T4. A ratio of 12%/4% on T3 would make it 3:1 = much more efficient than old tunings.

To have diminishing returns similar pattern to that of resistances would have to be used, thats alot more computation every time one shoots and would lag the game. Alot less variables (1 variable just to name it) involved in calculating resistance - before it is asked.

Limitations on number of modules would limit the number of different fits and scratch the whole idea WHY it is being made = to make other than 5-6 weapon tuning heavy mechs an option.

(*EDIT*) = that includes 3% critical hit (and calculates DPS/Acc not dmg/acc), should that be left on new tunings proposed T3 would be more efficient than old T4 as it is (12/5 would be 15/5 in that case).


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

NIC and tokens can be gathered risk free too. Essentially one can produce those by grinding missions.
How can you afk grind cortexes for MK2?
T4 takes either triple or double time to produce than T2 (depending on either buying or producing T1).
Im not saying T4 should always be better than lower tiers as they are now. It shouldn't be negative efficiency.

How do You propose % on different tiers of tunings?


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

More like depending if solo or with logi. Sniping or tanking. Full attention or semi afk. Various situations call for verious fits.
  Looks good on paper is what one can only hope for when theory crafting. Actual outcome cannot be predicted, and will never be able to calculate. Balanced numbers and percentages is what we can aim for at this stage. Testing in confined environment will not produce results either.
  Concerns can be raised at this stage. My concern is eliminating any advantage of higher tier of modules. Efficiency loss at higher tiers. Insta killing builds (700%+ dmg increase) and firearms and missile bias.
  If costs are not a factor for PvP then why don't we see only black heavy mechs fitted with all T4+ ?


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

T1 is just a component, infinite, extremely easy to get. Its still viable for no negative efficiency.
T2 better than T1 becouse of weight, cpu and pg reduction (this allows better fits)
T3 is best for efficiency and T4 for effectiveness.

So comparing a fight between T4 and T3 = the longer the fight gets the more in favor of the T3 it becomes. So to my understanding a 1v1 with alot of running back and forth and hiding behind plants = T3 is a better choice. All out move in for "all or nothing" T4 is the best option.

If T4 gets negative efficiency it will become unviable as the magno and energy tuners are now. It cannot be super high damage but only for 1-2 shots or jumping a teleport into pvp island in anything but plated heavy mech will result in death whenever there is one or two enemies camping. Imagine the cries after a few of those. This should only be avaiable when there is more people willing to do insta poping.

EDIT: example fitting options for PvE after proposed changes:
1. T3 fit with all head slots for weapon tunings. Leg slots filled with 3 resistances 1 repairer and 2 acc rechargers.
2. T4 fit with all head slots for weapon tunings. 1 leg slot used for repairer and rest for accumulator rechargers to keep it as stable as T3 fit.
One is much tankier and other one does more dps if it aint obvious. T4 version does 35% more dps (with 6 tuners), T3 is almost twice as tanky (and often more than twice). I know I would use both options for various situations in PvE.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

I would agree if every next tuning fitted had diminishing returns. So far (before patch) every next one gave proportionally more benefits than previous one. Therefore the more tunings you have already the less beneficial it is to fit anything else than yet another one. Old six T4 tuners tripled dps output. All that at no penalty and even tho acc stability took a hit with shorter cycles efficiency was actually rising.
   Every heavy used to stack tunings. No diversity.

A spreadsheet for T4 weapons using standard ammo. Ignore pink sections.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … sp=sharing


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

I think diversyfiing between t1-t4 is a great idea! It made me scratch my work that I had ready to post prior to reading it and redo it but I think it was worth it.

First lets get some facts out of the way.
1. 20% increase to the power of 6 (6 modules equipped) is 2.985 or basically almost ideally 3 times increase.
2. T4 is harder to make than T3. T3 is harder to make than T2.

Now for my proposition:
T0 = terrible tunings, might be considered better than nothing but thats about it
T1 = Increase in effectiveness but not efficiency
T2 = Identical to T1 but with lower fitting requirements. (basically as they are now - lets not mess up fits we all love to use shall we?)
T3 = Same increase in effectiveness as t1/t2 but better efficiency.
T2+ = Stats of T3 with fitting requirements of T2 (easiest solutions = best solutions)
T3- = Stats of T3 but higher fitting requirements
T4 = Best increase in effectiveness, slight increase in efficiency (but not as high as T3)
T4+ = Better increase in effectiveness and almost as good in efficiency as T3.

Basically if lacking TF and PG = fit T2 , accumulator = T3, power = T4

T4 is still best if you can afford both fitting and accumulator requirements (it is most expensive and difficult to build right?)
T3 will help you stable accumulator greatly.
T2 when you are missing TF or PG or need mre velocity.
T1 is not as good - but hey its cheap and infinite.

Now for numbers:
-It doesnt take rate of fire into factor - I absolutely agree on eliminating too many variables.
-Im going to call repaired/gathered/drained ammount and damage as power.
-Repair, Industrial, Enwar and Weapon tunings have identical increase in power and accumulator becouse above.

Tier 0
Power = 6% increase
Accumulator = 12% increase

Tier 1 and Tier 2
Power = 12% increase
Accumulator = 12% increase

Tier 2+, Tier 3, Tier 3-
Power = 12% increase
Accumulator = 5% increase

Tier 4
Power = 18% increase
Accumulator = 15% increase

Tier 4+
Power = 20% increase
Accumulator = 14% increase

Now to make other propositions easier for anyone not willing to do the mathematics here is a link to those values calculated into number of modules and accumulator efficiency associated with it. Copy it , change only values with yellow background, observe how values change and post your counter propositions if You have them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … sp=sharing

(EDIT: its T3- not T3+)

Corp storage container with password feature would solve most of the issue.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Toninu wrote:

And the percentages should look something like this:
Example on Yellow npcs (artemis / seth / zenith)

No resistance plates     - 23.08     60            9.09           31.03
1 universal plate.....    - 37.5     64.29    28.57       42.86   
2 universal plates...    - 54.55     70.59    50           57.45

Lets focus on one of them:

10p = 9.09%
45p = 28.57%  (+19.48) = 1 universal hardener
80p = 50%       (+21.43) = 2 hardeners

The % is increasing rather than decreasing - idk if theres any pattern to that increase but lets take best case scenario that % stop increasing:

3 hardeners = 71.43%
4 hardeners = 92.86%
5 hardeners = 114.29%

Are you supposed to be healed by damage in the resistance hole after equipping 5 universal hardeners?

I'm gonna put some numbers that are in the game atm for comparison:

10 points = 9.09%
45 points = 31.03% (+21.94)       
80 points = 44.44% (+13.41)
115 points= 53.49% (+9.05)

Notice the diminishing returns on % of resistance here.

Lets get some facts out of the way for anyone who doesn't know:
0 to 20% increase is proportionally same as 50 to 60% increase despite it being half of the raw % difference. 20% is one fifth of full 100% damage and 10% is also one fifth of the remaining 50% damage.

And now for the extreme!
Seth mk2, lvl10 skills, 5 kinetic activated hardeners =  920 points = 90.2% resistance
Seth mk2, lvl10 skills, 6 kinetic activated hardeners = 1070points = 91.45% resistance

Remaining 9.8% is reduced to 8.55% (thats 14.62% increase of remaining resistance pattern)
6800 armor becomes 79532 effective hit points in that resistance!

Resistances are very well balanced. No point changing that.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Well pvp is not completely rock-paper-scissors but when 1v1 in pure combat bots one is at a disadvantage. Not a big disadvantage but it is present, the fewer of it the better. If standard ammo types got their dmg types rebalanced a bit - going for somewhere around 20-30% of racial damage instead of over half of it then it should help with the issue of need to change ammo type. As it is now even for PvE I never used anything other than chemical ammo - difference is too insignifficant to bother. If it isn't good enough for PvE then I doubt it will ever get used for PvP.


(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Hermes is far from worthless - ability to see all 10 artifacts from middle of island makes it a primary artificing bot for me, especially with artifact resets it gives some nice "cherry picking" options.

30% increase in radius is equal to 69% increase in area of a circle.

Have anyone actually tested Locust? After tuning changes?
Ikarus is good for what it is, and definitely for the price.
Echelon is not that bad, its better than any mk1 mechs thats for sure.
Daidalos boasts very good speed/tank/cargo/price. I use it alot.
Hermes is awesome.
Cronus is downright terrible tongue It needs +1 head slot, even for the cost of leg. If it gets +1 head slot it would still be only slightly better than argano/laird mk2.


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

if you all (including DEV Zoom) count DPS in %...

I'm calculating dps increase in % factoring given variables using mathematics taught in schools.

According resistances:
9.09% vs 60% is enough of a difference worst to best without modificators. I agree with the fact that faction ammo is best in most scenarios with some rare exceptions. But the culprit here is ammo damage with all standard ammo having more than half of it as its racial type. This also makes pvp more of a rock-paper-scissors unfortunately.

and just to answer:
Such diminishing returns are also with plates, number of weapons and various other factors that dont need additional mechanics as standard math facts are enough here.
Accumulator rechargers are calculated exponentialy true that. But do they have exponential returns? Lets check!:
0 T4 accumulator rechargers = 504s recharge time
1 = 415
2 = 343
3 = 283
4 = 233
5 = 192
415 / 343 = 1.21
343 / 283 = 1.21
283 / 233 = 1.21
233 / 192 = 1.21


(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

After testing and calculations here are my thoughts on tuners (and some other modules) in the game. Before I start tho I need to say that armor resistance is the only stat with diminishing returns and is currently nicely balanced. Also 1-2 module types never cause issues really so I will focus on maximum stacking them.


Currently we are at +50% efficiency for +30% consumption (+69% for remote)
Lets consider 5 tuners then:
759% repaired amount increase
371% accumulator consumption
This gives us a ratio of 2.05 to 1. In short, accumulator efficiency doubles, repair efficiency just gets ridiculous.
For remote rapairers accumulator consumption is 1377%. Thats ratio of 1 to 1.81 so efficiency almost gets cut in half.

Tanking observers in assault bots is fun but I'm going to assume not intended. These need to be toned down and changed for remote reps that are now useless with tunings. Tunings still should increase accumulator efficienency but not to such a degree.

My proposition:
+25% repaired amount for T1 and T2 = 305% so a ratio of 0.82 to 1
+30% repaired amount for T3 = 371% = 1 to 1 ratio)
+37.5% repaired amount for T4 = 491% = 1.32 to 1 ratio)
Reduce additional remote consumption to 5% - ratio gets only slightly better with T4.


Well things should be simple here as % are the same as armor rep tunings. I would suggest a similar rebalance as proposed for armor repair tuners. The current increase in ammount mined/harvested sure is nice but is slightly too much - I'm all out for more so the market might get some life touched to it but scarabs mk2 filling themselves in 3h is a bit too much in my humble opinion.

I am only going to do numbers for T4 this time:
491% with all lvl 10 extensions = 736.5% as opposed to current 1.3k% - its still much more but not completely overboard.


Again here I am going to consider stacking 5 of those together:
201% increased drain amount
161% drain/neut accumulator ussage
305% increased neutralized amount
Not considering robot or extension bonuses now:
T4 medium energy neutralizer = 370 acc use and 900 acc drained = 0.41 to 1 ratio, extensions improve this even further. Seriously? This will change game into neuting artemis/seth alts energy wars. Save such ratios for Ictuses and troiars please.

My proposition:

T1 and T2:
10% drained energy
10% accumulator usage
10% neutralized amount

13% drained energy
10% accumulator usage
13% neutralized amount

15% drained energy
10% accumulator usage
15% neutralized amount

Now with 5 T4 tuners a T4 unbonused medium neutralizer costs 370acc and neuts 593acc - It is still very good but not as overpowered anymore - and can actually be countered by sealings.


Last but not least are the weapons. Currently one can fit a few tuners for conventional firearms or missiles - but no more than a few or it just gets silly. Laser and magno weapons shouldn't use any however unless some serious energy logi is used.
I understand that stacking up weapon tunings is a practice that should cease at least for pvp for diversity. Using up head slots should not get penalized or it will prove the module invalid. I am going to assume that without any weapon tunings all weapons are balanced. The tricky part here is that they all got different dmg, acc and cycle time per shot.

Before changes 5 weapon tuners meant  approximately 245.7% dps along with better accumulator ratio. That is way too much to ignore. What will happen if we remove both damage and accumulator penalty from weapon tunings? 5 tuners will increase dps to 169% with no accumulator ratio increase (and it will consume over 50% more acc and ammo due to rate of fire).

So my proposition for all weapon tuners:
3% critical
7.5% rate of fire