Losing the high doesn't hurt as much in missions, and the added mid and low will give it better cap stability and tank, so job well done.

Fot those complaining about losing the utility high for PVP, use the extra mid for E-war, adapt your fit to include the extra low for more DPS or tank. The extra power grid won't hurt, either.

I think that the Maller will be an interesting ship to try, now that it looks to do some actual damage along with its heroic tank. It may finally be used as something other than obvious bait or cyno.

The Ruppie trades a high for a mid, but keeps split weapons – this seems the biggest loser in the group – it had no real issues as a mission runner, so I guess that slot is for a target painter, but loses DPS/neut/nos in PVP. This ship is a brawler, so E-war at (relatively) point-blank range is, at best, of barely moderate use. Possibly a Tracking Computer? ECM/Damp & Artie's? We'll have to play around with it some.

In small gang fights, the drone boats don't leave while their friends stick around to die. And you don't get to loot the field until you've won the engagement. Spare drones, ammunition, cap charges and nano paste is what your cargo hold is _for_ if you're a pvper.

ALso still the right answer wasnt DMG or range but 1 simple thing tracking….Make HML`s have bad tracking and guys would have to shose to lose DPS wasting a low slot with a TE or tank using a mid for a TC…..Thats all they had to do.

I was worried they were gonna leave shitty power fitting, so ships like Nighthawk still couldnt fit true combat Ham fits with MWD, but loos like it might work.

Also maybe Torps will come back in some sore of utility role…..SB certainly will be more vicious killers without just bombs….They will actually kill a webbed Cruiser and web`d and painted frig lol.

CCP could have fixed this among with other things, but they keep holding on to such ideas, to cripple the ships artificially and possibly thinking it is more fair somehow. I'd really like to see how the devs get their ideas. Like how they decide to give all cruisers except for one 6 target locks and one gets 7 target locks:

"We give the Moa 7 target locks, because we give it the least scan strength. It locks targets a little slower than the others but can lock one more than them. Also because Caldari uses ECM for their main e-war do we give it the highest sensor strength so that this keeps making sense. Bla bla bla … (10 pages later) … and finally we round it up with a sound 15 mbit drone bandwidth."

Or maybe they have an equation system to calculate a "perfect" balance and this change is one of many that their computers gave out and which seemed to be the least nonsensical among all the theoretical "perfect" solutions.

I'd really like to read a formal reasoning for every change than only the final changes themselves.