Weapon Changes
Normalizing all weapons is a step in the completely wrong direction. We want variance in ship builds, not just weapon looks. We want them to perform different, be used in different manners. The pvp roundtable said everything was all shoved into one bucket. The changes made on the PTS shove it even more into one bucket, you can just change your weapons a little bit to have a different name.
In order to properly add some spice to pvp, we need greater variation(in numbers but not choices), BUT range is not one of those factors. Range completely negates all other forms of variables (damage/aiming/etc) because if the opposition can't hit you, then you will eventually win. I think range needs to be normalized and everything else needs changing. Since weight is the overall factor of how ships perform, perhaps it needs to play in more for certain types. Between weapons, Ammo, Shields, there's too many seperated variables to balance, it needs to be simplified.
Normalize all ranges PER weapon type.
Remove multiple variables overlapping on weapons and ammo.
Weapon variable = tracking, cone, or capacity cost.
Ammo variable = reload or damage.
Larger ships are currently not viable because of the miss chance on bigger weapons, because everything is based on weapon size vs cross section, there is no real point on going medium or large. The range difference just leads to the smaller ship catching up to the more weighted/slower ship and losing due to the drastic gap in hit chance. So a solution to this is to revisit hit chance for weapons scaling up to large.
Shields - Currently they have a static amount per size. A huge change that may affect all of this, is giving shields bonuses based on the honeycomb. This could be straight HP or also resistances. I would think you would make a maximum based on core size, or have a degrading slope to the bonus per honeycomb. This will also alleviate all the ships with no honeycomb in pvp and could spur up some cool designs.
I'd love feedback, or workshopping on any of these ideas, feel free to take them to any future roundtables. I would love to see a more open discussion, rather than just listening, because it doesn't really seem like you understood what was being said fully.