EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2016-04-25 14:33
  • First Forum Visit: 2016-05-04 02:22
  • Number of Posts: 124
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 91

Coralas

Security Status 5.0
  • Center for Advanced Studies Member since
  • Gallente Federation Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • The Financial Report in EVE Communication Center

    Kassimila wrote:



    That seems to be the consensus here. Tank your freighter/Make 20 alts yourself/don't carry enough to be gankable. So lets break that down.

    Freighter cost: 1.23 bil
    Purpose of Freighter: To haul many things.



    Nope. Purpose of the freighter is to carry bulk low value things, with some adjustability via expanders and bulkheads to deal with various ranges of low value. One low value item that fits into a freighter is a repackaged shuttle, another is an unrigged blockade runner.

    That is a major, major misconception about its design purpose.

    Quote:



    Freighter Fit: x3 T2 bulkheads, EHP vs antimatter: 402k

    vs

    T1 Gank catalyst:
    Cost: 3.8mil
    DPS: 454 with overheat
    Total Required for .5 sec kill: 45
    Cost of Attack: 171mil

    So: The break even on loot value is 350mil. Ignoring the fact that you just destroyed a ship worth 1.3bil for the cost of 171mil. You actually make a profit if the person is carrying 2 T1 battleship hulls? So basically unless you have a cargo hold of trit and nothing else, you're worth killing is my point here.



    That is what a freighter load should look like in the chokes. There shouldn't be the whole mineral basket, there should be whatever was overpriced or unobtanium, or would constitute excessive volume for the local market and thus become overpriced if it wasn't being shipped.

    I haul hulls, like 2 jumps from build location to hub. Maybe 3-4 if you lived in the forge.

  • shiny floaty Nyx - delayed until Q3/4 2017 in EVE Communication Center

    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


    Guess this just makes them the perfect fit for CCP's ability to deliver...


    CCP would still deliver, but first of all nyxes would be late, followed by revision to dominix, followed by delivery of a vexor, then a general policy that all future models would always be an algos, but delivered quickly.

    In the future each delivery of an algos would have the number of slots changed to try and cure the perception that they were likely to fall over and were thus unbalanced, and eventually all future work would revolve around balancing the models. If they delivered a new model, then it would be particularly likely to fall over and thus need considerable balancing work.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:


    You wont want them in your alliance fleets, and looks to me like they will barely be able to run 5/10s.

    What use do you see for them, post-change, to validate the SP investment?

    PS: This is the LS cyno issue all over again, in parallel.
    JFs, cynos and caps are overpowered for bypassing LS gates, or running LS content, yet they still exist.


    If they change the rep bonus down to 7.5% to put it inline with the deimos, then it will still be able to tank 5 through 10/10 serpentis and 5 through 10/10 gurista as long as the sig doesn't become battlecruiser scale.

    I don't have experience with the blood/sansha encounters, but I imagine it would work fine for anything that doesn't have excessive neuts.

    As it turns out the t3s are a large part of how things bypass gates, ie your argument down that line just doesn't make sense, any cursory examination of zkill is going to show you dead proteus after dead proteus with covert cloak, covert cyno and regular cyno.

    In any case, I can't view t3 hotdrop tackle as a problem because that is exactly the thing that causes a rorqual to die and its the kind of thing I don't get tackled by.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    T3's are not overpowered apart from the ability to fit battleship sized modules but that applies to all cruisers. Even with that odd ability the Tengu is the only one that gets a crazy tank but then you can similiarly fit an Onyx, Eagle and they also get crazy tank. I've tanked 20 man fleets in an Onyx and Eagle.

    Baltec is yet to show evidence of a T3 that is overpowered. He will generally say oh Proteus gets 150k ehp therefore its overpowered and like a battleship but he fails to acknowledge such a Proteus is about as useful as floating asteroid when it comes to fighting, tackling or keeping its cap up.

    Smoke and Mirrors as usual.


    afaik deimos is 1700msec / 55k ehp / 500 dps from guns, it can't fit full 250mm gun rack, 1600mm plate, mwd, 2x trimarks. I presume the extra mid will mean that it is out tracking the proteus or out damaging it at longer ranges. Drone damage is also larger, but med drones in hacs, think that could be some wasted attribute really.

    Active tanked, both it and the proteus have t2 resists and a rep amount bonus. ie buffer on the active proteus is not that important, and I only run 1 rep for pve. The adaptive augmenter has a second tanking bonus but thats at the cost of a slot, so I don't use it.

    If they were to change the actual tank bonus to be 7.5% instead of 10% so it was like the deimos, I wouldn't care, and likewise my fit has less than 1200 grid, so if the selection of subs I'm using was brought down from 1350 or so that it is now down to 1200 I probably wouldn't care either.

    ie I can't see that the active tank is really _that_ much out of scale compared to the deimos.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Coralas wrote:
    You introduced a word I didn't type and then hung your argument on it, there isn't any amount of hairsplitting that is going to salvage that.


    Um, what? You literally wrote "using my multipurpose exploration ship" like four pages ago???



    I did, and you rewrote multipurpose as dedicated.

    Quote:


    CCP have flatly said they can't possibly check the impact of every ship in the game when they're released, and they're always re-evaluating whether the current state of the game is good or not. T3Cs are OP, this has been known for a long time, if CCP decide that the site running aspects should be preserved they'll change the sites, if not then they won't. Claiming that CCP specifically intended the current state of site running and T3Cs is a bit ridiculous, considering CCP have talked about what they intended for T3Cs and very little of it matches up with how they're currently used.

    If you're not using the extra fitting space on the Proteus but somehow have room for a full set of full sized guns on the Isthar then I'm really not sure if your Isthar fit is bad or your Proteus fit. In either case as I've said before CCP should not balance things for whatever arbitrary things individuals decide to do with a ship.



    Well this is the point where they do need to consider what ships can or can't do what content, ie design their game.

    I'd be perfectly ok if they designed the game so that 10/10s can't be done with T3s, but I'd hate them to just flop out a random nerf purely to satisfy OCD about ship classes that meant that 1 T3 could do 10/10s and the rest couldn't.

    Another solution i'd be happy about would be that racial 10/10s work with the racial cruiser or larger ships, but serpentis/gurista resist profile similarity makes that non trivial, likewise I'd be happy if they moved the maze and any other easy 10/10s to 9/10 (which don't exist), changed the loot table to a-type from x-type and added new 10/10s to hand out x-types that were appropriately difficult for the source of what is basically super/titan loot.

    That would also help drain out the way overfarmed pith x-type loot table loot excess from the market.

    Quote:



    CCP have to balance for how the ships are actually being used. They can't just go around and get all the players to pinky-promise not to abuse what they're given.

    As has been said repeatedly, the tank and the DPS is what makes the T3Cs OP. If your fit relies on the high DPS and tank of the ship there is no good way to nerf these other fits and preserve yours.



    You keep saying tank, without acknowledging the two types of tank. I think a pair of 1600mm plates is overpowered for a cruiser. But active pve fits don't use plates. ie this is very much related to the class of buffer fits and casual perusal of proteus losses show that active rep fits die all the time since its likely a solo fitting and solo in this game is an inevitable lossmail.

    Quote:


    That is incredibly vague and not an argument. There is no single fit that's OP for the T3Cs, there are a very very small number of fits that maybe aren't entirely OP but those are the exception not the rule. This persistent belief of yours that there are only a few problem fits does not align with reality.

    Again, the comparison here is not between raw T1 and T3. T3s are supposed to be better than raw T1, it's in the charge. Was it really that hard to read or something?



    This is where everyones lack of specificity on what constitutes overpowered does in fact matter. All you are doing is repeating an overpowered mantra without explaining what it is.

    Example of overpowered - cruiser with active rep bonus running 2 reps, all other grid consuming things like mwd, battery full gunrack with no grid rig. Solution tighten the grid until a rig is needed and thus the rep bonuses from rigs or extended cap life is dropped.

    Example of overpowered - cruiser with cap injector, mwd, full gun rack and 2x 1600mm plates with 3 trimarks and thus no grid rig. Solution : tighten grid till the rig is needed and the EHP drops by a trimark.

    ie I fundamentally reject the notion you can claim overpoweredness without specifying what it is.

    Also the t3 destroyers are fundamental evidence that CCP and boxes on a very vague graph are not very accurate, since they wrote the box graph picture and then stomped all over that with the t3ds, and they've still only internally balanced the class, ie if they were to release pirate or navy destroyers they'd have to nerf t3ds first.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    You wanted this.

    Dont whine when you finally realize the repercussions of your selfish bias, rather than the good of the game.

    Apparently dropping a few thousand more players is worth it, as long as it makes you safer in NS.

    So be it then.


    I don't think baltec has a bias and can't be called selfish. Does have a different view on how the cruiser role overlaps other roles.

    I do think CCP is going to have to make game design level decisions about what (and who) is supposed to do exploration content in this process. Like it or not, its a factor in the balancing.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:


    I spent 3 months out in null sec in a cloaky Ishtar. I didn't die once and I made around 20 billion isk running combat sites. It was in the old northern Goodswarm space mostly. Using wormholes and giant secure containers I set up a supply base for it and just used my smarts to stay alive. I wrote a guide on how to do it (Infinity Ziona's Guide to Solo Combat Site Running) or something similiar.



    Just bear in mind that I remember when you did that, and it was long before the changes to anoms, fozzie sov etc. IMO no entity is reserving as much space per pilot as that era, and therefore no space is as empty as that was.

    I stopped playing in the intervening period, and for me, the difference when looking at "players in space in the last 30 minutes" on the map is stark. At those times vast swathes of null was black, nowadays most systems are lit up, and all the time. Really empty systems are basically just NPC null.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    "Multipurpose exploration ship" has "exploration" as the primary adjective affecting "ship" which indicates that you consider the ship an exploration ship first and multipurpose second, hence my interpretation of your original comment.



    You introduced a word I didn't type and then hung your argument on it, there isn't any amount of hairsplitting that is going to salvage that.

    Quote:


    Only in whatever specific role you're referring to. If the Ishtar is better at everything then yes, the Proteus would be a flat out lesser ship, but that seems unlikely considering at the very least the Isthar doesn't have a bonus to Data or Relic sites, and the T3Cs do, which seems unlikely to change.

    The T3Cs weren't particularly designed with anything other than Wormhole PvE in mind, which was designed at around the same time. CCP never look at every possible thing a ship might interact with when putting it into the game, it's impractical. They rely on the players to point out potential major problem spots but some inevitably sneak through the cracks.

    It could be argued that the original Tengu was one of these, since it became one of the most popular Level 4 mission runners more or less over night.

    I know the Deimos can be effective, it was downright hilarious for a while before they nerfed Medium Rails.

    The Ishtar generally has trouble fitting full sized guns while the Proteus gets a 25% bonus to its guns with the drone subsystem and gets around 400 more PG and more CPU along with an extra low slot and rig slot.



    They introduced the whole probing system everywhere at the same time, and they didn't make wormhole space self sufficient (no pos fuel), ie they plainly expected the T3s to be traded to k-space for k-space use. As I recall they didn't even expect people to live in wormholes as much as they did and do. They always knew they were producing a powerful ship, its right there in the names T3, strategic.

    Yet I have both ishtar and proteus, and both have guns, and I don't need all the grid on the proteus, that grid is there to run the fits I'm not using, you know, the ones I've advocating people focus on nerfing.

    Quote:


    I'm really not seeing any statements with much in the way of explanation behind them, certainly not about why T3Cs in general aren't OP. You've said a lot of stuff about your own experiences, albeit in vague terms, and about why you personally don't want the ships to be nerfed, but none of that amounts to much of an explanation.



    I've explained exactly what i'd prefer. I'd prefer the overpowered fit to be nerfed. That is not difficult to understand. In the case of the tengu, that may be the 850 dps pve fit, in the case of the proteus that may be buffer fits. Even as it stands, I'm still shipping my ishtar to my current ratting location because its faster at anomolies.

    Quote:


    You also seem to have missed something somewhere about relative ship power levels. If you'd care to refer to the original ship tiericide devblog post that I've linked previously, specifically this graphic which is what is being referenced here you'll note that they're putting T3s on about the power level of navy ships but with more generalization.

    Based on what's been done with the T3 Destroyers this means you can have the power level of a Navy ship, but in a couple of areas. For example a Drone Proteus might end up looking a bit like a VNI in terms of drone power but probably tank a little better and either have a cloak, better base stats, nullification, or some additional specialization but not quite at the level of a T2 ship.



    Except that isn't how the T3Ds work. They are vastly more powerful than the t1 variants. The only thing that the T1 can compete on is raw dps, and only in suicide mode - as soon as you put a damage control on a hecate, it still matches the cat for damage, and as soon as you put a damage control on a cat, the hecate is just more of everything and with a neut AND its uncatchable in lowsec. Ring any bells ?

    I'm sure that if I make a suicide mode vexor i'd get the exact same relationship right now with the drone proteus.

    Quote:


    Again, I never asserted the Drone Boat Proteus was bad, just generally not eclipsing the Isthar as a pure drone boat.

    You're the one who said several times that using a drone boat was disadvantaging you at whatever sites you're running, and as I said I can't really comment on your specific setup or issues without more detail than you've provided so far, and I assume are willing to provide.

    If you don't find the Proteus a compelling alternative to the Isthar post-nerfs then I don't think there's anything stopping you from bringing one.

    If the Proteus provides more safety from players but doesn't run the sites as well then that's a meaningful trade off and good game balance.


    Aye, in the 1 in 30 case or whatever that any site decides to roll 30 second aggro. All the advantages remain, like better dps in the midfield than rails, ammo conservation, you know all the things you skipped over in your reply.

    Several structures and tanks in exploration require ~600 dps to break. its make or break number. Not only that, 600 dps is on the edge of making some encounters interminably long as it is (and I bet a great number of tengu pilots will complain bitterly if their pve ship is nerfed to 600 dps, let alone below), and the 250mm railgun vigilant with a proper tank fitted, has a lot more dps than that, ie it is not pirate ship performance.

    nerf the fits that are broken.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Dracvlad wrote:



    seriously mate, this game is supposed to be hard...


    Yet here you are supporting a system that allows you to pass by the defenses of anyone simply by clicking warp to next gate.


    You can put an armed dock on your camp. Its not like the whole camp concept hasn't been so stoutly upgraded that it doesn't need a counter for individuals, especially when passing through the camp typically has to be done twice and when the changes to the sov system has repopulated each null system with someone on your intel channel (including putting in carrots like sanctum/haven in bad truesec systems), so that even if your camp system is inconveniently large and you can't figure which gate I left by, the guy in the next system over will tell them.

    Lastly, we are only of 2 types, the ones looking for sigs, and the ones running an escalation, and the ones looking for sigs will eventually warp to a location that you can have scanned down in advance, and since most sov null systems have a person in it these days, the expectation these days is higher that explorers will run a signature with someone in local.

    If you can't keep coverage up, then well you are probably holding more space than you need and should expect people to get away with taking your precious signatures.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    I'm not suggesting you're using the wrong tool for the job, I'm saying that the Proteus is not a dedicated exploration ship.

    You've said yourself that whatever you're doing drones are not the optimal tool for it. Without more details I can't really comment on the specifics of the sites you're doing beyond your own vague assessment of them. Comparing the Proteus and the Stratios it seems likely that post-update the Proteus will still be an upgrade in overall performance over the Stratios, but it won't be the same night and day difference, especially in tank, that it is now.



    nah, I said "multipurpose exploration". just flat out no.

    Even the stratios is not a dedicated exploration ship, as anything with a reasonable tank, and the ability to fit 3 neuts, a cloak and an expanded probe launcher and deal nearly 500 dps with covert cloak fitted plainly has hunter applications.

    Quote:


    The Isthar is probably the only HAC currently not directly overshadowed by the relevant T3C competing fit. However considering that the Ishtar can't warp cloaked and doesn't get any kind of bonuses to probing or data and relic analyzers I think calling it a flat out lesser ship is a bit of a stretch.



    If it cannot do the same content that the ishtar can do, then it is flat out lesser ship, there is no point me bringing a swiss army knife if I can't unscrew something on the encounter to avoid me needing a machete. Put another way, the ships were designed to exploit the existing content, not the other way around.

    Quote:


    The problem here isn't that the Deimos is a bad HAC, the problem is that the Proteus is superior to it in virtually every way.

    Even the Drone-fit Proteus can pull more raw DPS than an Ishtar, it just gets a large part of it out of guns which makes it less attractive since drone fits tend to be pure drone boats.



    So we have a minor difference on opinion about how effective the deimos is and an agreement that the rail buffer fit proteus overshadows it.

    there are turret slots on the ishtar.

    Quote:


    Except as has been repeatedly stated here there is not one fit that is out of line. There is, at best, one fit that doesn't directly overshadow its HAC counterpart here, and that's more because the Ishtar is an OP little monster and gets 100% of its bonuses to drones where as the Proteus' drone fits are more of a hybrid setup.

    That doesn't mean we should sacrifice overall balance to preserve your snowflake, which is probably *still* kinda OP given how well a Proteus tanks compared to an Ishtar if its puts it mind to it.



    No, only you've stated that, and I've repeatedly pointed out why I don't believe that is so.

    also that was not what was being discussed. ie baltec and I were having a discussion about the proteus being barely better than the thorax that you've jumped into. I think the whole idea that the progression goes t1->t3->navy->t2->pirate makes no sense whatsoever, no how flexible the t3 is when totally under powered. There is no doubt that t3 moniker implies progression.

    Quote:


    Welcome to the wonderful world of Eve tradeoffs.

    I don't think your exploration ship is going to be nerfed into uselessness, at least not objectively. Whether or not you find it as the best option is going to be another thing entirely.



    You do make me laugh, I've just pointed out all the trade offs that make the droneboat proteus good at its task after you've asserted it was bad. welcome to eve yourself.

    yet again, I'll refer you to the point that the swiss army knife is useless if the content doesn't allow alternatives to bringing a brick swinging a machete. That is not a trade off, that is useless.

  • 6/10-10/10 Guristas DED's still worth doing? in EVE Gameplay Center

    SharpestBanana wrote:
    Hey guys. I quit awhile back, have not done DED sites in null for maybe... 2 years? Wondering if anyone familiar with any of the null DED sites (perferably Guristas, although if there is one that is considered "best" to solo, that would be fine) could tell me if they are still quite profitable?

    I used to run a 1b solo tengu in nullsec trips to run DEDs by myself in base corp for fun, made anywhere from 80mil-1bil per site, averaged around 200m.


    https://eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=4347

    its down about 400m from when I started living there and about 200m from when I stopped. The sig is still reasonably rare and it still only escalates from bad anomolies and I presume still at a terrible rate.

    I think that oversupply has been a lot harsher on the pith x-type (maze) loot and b-type loot (piths penal), nothing individually worth more than 110m on those loot tables. overseers box is probably over 50% of the loot value on average these days.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Coralas wrote:
    Lets go down that rabbit hole and see what can be found.


    The entire point is that CCP keeps going down that same rabbit hole (ie "pvp like PVE, fewer but smarter PVE adversaries), and we keep finding nothing. Incursions (little used compared to regular PVE), Drifters, Mining Operations and burner missions are all variations on the same theme that the new Blood Raider Capital Scheme will be.

    It's like the season NPC events. CCP launched Crimson Harvest and people loved it. It was simple, elegant, and rewarding. The NPCs were a bit tougher than normal but weren't too tough to kill at all and didn't get all fancy with what they were doing.

    So they kept going, kept 'evolving' them, to the point that Shadow of the Serpent came along and it was a pure overly complicated mess. I found myself thinking "the know CR style content works, WTF are they thinking". Eventually CCP returned to the very simple, elegant and rewarding Crimson harvest Style but they had to run around in circles a bit before they did that.



    The serpentis event was fine, however the mistakes were (a) too grindingly long (b) bugs at release - which should be lessened with each iteration of events, and the NPCs were dull and predictable mission AI, and ultimately you were best served by only completing one of the event tasks.

    The most important part was there was a public can with most of the loot value in it, which made being competitive a useful strategy for income, and advantaged anyone that understands how anom spawning works and anyone that kept track of what had died to know when to spam for the loot.

    Quote:


    It's just not hard to understand. PVE should be simple, elegant, and appropriately rewarding for the risks involved. Easily accessible is important too, which is why people still do missions (where there is ONE place they need to dock at) while the same people rarely do Epic Arc missions that drag you around even though they are more rewarding and repeatable every few months.

    If people want complicated and unpredictable and dangerous, they will pick PVP as their main focus. Some people who pve think they want this to, but the fact is they probably just don't know what they want.


    Here is an observation. If I stay still in caldari highsec space for an hour, I'll see like 10 anomoly respawns. Sometimes its hard to complete a den before a couple of refuges and another den has spawned.

    If I go look at who is doing the anomolies, its an endless parade of faction cruisers flown by multi year old characters (mostly gilas). Again this is something you can log on during peak and identify yourself, and I'm going to put it out there that the total number of characters actively doing this during peak weekend time is as much as 200, in caldari space alone.

    This is a more complicated task than mission running, it involves moving away from base to find the content, a skinnerbox escalation event, going to lowsec to complete the economic cycle and a skinnerbox loot event which requires many events to get income to be steady, and in some cases (den farmers) an end room that is probably as difficult as showtime unless you gate into low with something that fits an MJD. Those people are choosing to do that instead of running L4s.

    By the time I add up the people that will do burners, the people that are outright hunting sigs, the people that are farming anomolies whilst they scan for sigs, the people that are just farming anomolies for escalations, and the incursion runners, then I'm starting to think that its possible that even right now, that the majority of combat PVE in highsec might not be the old pool of L4s anymore. Its not trivial to say that it is, and I'd have to go do a great deal of observation or getting CCP to help to even prove that it is.

    Therefore I think that your estimates about willingness to perform effort, and about what people want to do for PVE are both aged and anecdotal and might reflect a significant minority, but not necessarily the majority of players, and I think that if the debate continues, its going to have to involve a lot more fact hunting.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    Ah, see this seems to be a bit of confusion on your part.

    First off, the Proteus was never intended as a dedicated exploration ship. There are very few ships in Eve that are built by CCP to fill one singular and specific role, and all of the ones I can think of are haulers. The SOE ships are more intended as exploration ships and have bonuses toward that end but the T3s don't really and neither hull is completely dedicated to exploration.



    I spent the almost the entirety of this characters career flying a stratios - the proteus drone fit is the natural extension of the skills trained for the stratios and it is a natural upgrade in firepower and tank, with the trade off of having to depot switch the covert mode off it to fight properly. ie I understand perfectly where the 2 ships fit into and why you choose each for a particular subrole within exploration, and ultimately if you fly about finding things, after you find them, you have to DO them. To suggest that I'm not choosing the right tool for the right area is farcical. The tengu shares fewer skills with the stratios, its essentially a scrap and rework for someone coming naturally up the modern exploration path as laid out by CCP.

    Quote:

    Quote:


    then common sense would fix the overperforming fit, instead of retaining the current balance between the general fits. sentry drones are a weapon intended for pve play (as well as pvp), and drone aggro is mostly intended to afk check.


    You don't seem to be understanding here, there isn't one over-performing fit, the ship is OP as a package and the fact that you can use it in a way that is actively bad by your own admission and still perform well is also OP, because if you were using that same fit in a place it's actually good it would be OP itself.

    The primary things about these ships that are OP are the tank and the DPS. Those are the same things that are allowing your fit to work.



    its a bit over 600 dps at garde II optimal and an active tank It is already below the ishtar in application, range and raw dps. it _has_ to have a bigger tank or its not a trade off, its a heads up lesser ship.

    I know where this leads to, this leads to the observation that the rail/buffer fit is dramatically superior to rail/buffer fit deimos, and we know what the correct options are for fixing that, and only half that fix is on the proteus side and does not need to affect how I use the ship. Most races have a good hac and a **** hac and that is generally something CCP could fix.

    Quote:

    You're still overly focused on your own niche of play here.



    Did I, or did I not say, fix the fit that is out of line, and the accusation that I'm focused on a niche is just as easily levelled at you.

    Quote:



    If you want to use the ship for exploration going forward then consider either swapping to a gun fit or otherwise experimenting with your options. Worst case if you're not willing to risk an expensive fit in hostile space then either opt to run escalations that spawn closer to home or bring a friend and split the payout.

    There are always options, CCP are not required to enable your arbitrary decisions about how you want to play the game.


    Rails don't out damage drones at midfield ranges, and I lived in gurista space for a long time, which has a lot of that, and they also mitigate a lot of ewar and shoot into resistance holes, and you can run ammoless on targets that don't require full dps, since well railgun ammo is a major space hog that will force you to do dull space trucking work if you run railguns for everything, ie drones used well economize on a lot of irritations of exploration. I'm sure tengu pilots view missile bulk as a problem.

    and lastly I think that running content in a sea of blue space, supported by jump freighters is a pretty naff concept for an exploration ship or an exploration career, and if the power of this ship is reduced, it utterly must have logistic issues reduced too so that the flexibility can be used to work around the resultant lack of power right there on the spot.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Coralas wrote:


    Ultimately there is no rule book for what _will_ work, but it is most certainly CCPs job to experiment and find out what entertains us.


    And they fail sometimes. Look at Drifters.



    and wormholes stuck just fine, as did highsec incursions, and we are talking about CCP who is ultimately a 1 game wonder studio at this point in time anyway. I do however expect that refreshing the PVE content is necessary to keep EVE alive, no matter how good or bad they are at it.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.


    This is a terrible expectation. And it's built on even worse thinking, the general false and even dangerous idea that if PVE "teaches PVP" then PVE players will be less likely to victims in PVE situations (and perhaps they might even choose to PVP more).

    The truth is that a person being a victim or not of pvp has to do with personal traits they bring to the game. You can't teach wisdom or prudence, these are things you have a capability for, or you don't.



    that is a long way away from the thing that I said. I think that people should be exposed to the concept that if they get the first few seconds of some encounters right, they win, or at least go into overtime, but if they fail to get the initial chain right, they lose. L4s really aren't like that. They are more like grind at this thing and it will be done regardless.

    I'm getting to the point of understanding why some CAS members rarely die in the messy adhoc pvp fights without fc's that can occur to us here, which really is only a leap I can make when I'm getting the first part of fights right. ie if I do x,y,z correctly I now know to look out for a-b-c which is easier to do when x-y-z is entirely automatic.

    Quote:


    That's a bunch of rationalizing. I say we book mark this post of your and revisit the issue 6 months after the feature is introduced. When that happens I will enjoy demonstrating to you why the past matters (ie why the Revenant tells the story that is about to be repeated with the Blood Caps) and why your thought process led you to believe things that aren't so.


    it is a large bunch of facts. How you get "rationalizing' out of that, I don't know. I will however say that this reply plainly looks like rainchecking your way out of debating your viewpoint in light of the facts.

    Blood raiders is an Its an event. More than happy to discuss whether the event succeeds or not later on.

    I personally find the idea of 1000 npc's doing something other than individually moving to orbit distance and missing my ship with their terrible tracking to be a good thing. Lets go down that rabbit hole and see what can be found.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:


    This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.


    I really don't think it is. I also expect that the rate of burner rejection has gone down over time, and I expect that individual pilots graduate to being able to run them, some individual pilots aspire to run them, and some individual pilots like that there is frigate specific content that pays well, and I also don't really think it was that much of CCPs dev time.

    Ultimately there is no rule book for what _will_ work, but it is most certainly CCPs job to experiment and find out what entertains us.

    Quote:


    Looking in the wrong direction. The thing for CCP to do is make Scrams turn off NPC Microwarpdrives (they don't currently). I keep a scam on my Ratting machariel just in case of Blops drop (Blops like to fit MJDs, the scram is my way of saying "yep, it was a mistake for you to disturb my ratting").

    No one has said that CCP can't improve npcs, I'm saying that the goal of making PVE look more like PVP is a bad idea. people who want to directly PVP will go do that, I don't kill rats for PVP fun.



    I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.

    Quote:


    You mean the exact same thing they did with Revenant Blue Prints in Low sec incursions. Man , there sure are a lot of Revenants flying around these days....

    Which again is the point. I'm not making guesses. I'm viewing the PVE HISTORY of EVE Online.

    The idea that these hidden stations spewing valuable Blueprints is going to work can already be debunked, because you can see that getting Revenant Blue prints from low sec incursions (that allow CAPITALS to use gates) barely ever happens.

    The incursion system for getting revenant blue prints is EASIER and more GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE than what CCP is going to do with the Blood Raider BPCs in hidden stations, and yet very few people can be arsed to screw with it. This new PVE scheme CCP is coming up with will be hot for 1 or two months, and might generate an interesting fleet fight or 2 between real player groups, but eventually, just like with low sec incursions and Revenant BPCs, people are going to figure out that it's not worth risking fleet assets over.

    No good FC is going to risk a big fleet to a PL/Goons/NC/whoever hot drop to get some blue prints to ships that are basically novelty items. Again, reference the Revenant (which on paper is the BEST Super Carrier and should be flying off the shelves).


    (a) its 20 - 40 player content that drops isk, a few modules and *possibly* the mothership bp, and the indivdiual player has a very low expectation of getting the BP - ie I bet they are always sold and split up or made alliance property.

    I looked today, and there appeared to be nil lowsec incursions today. So if the BP drops 20% of the time ( I don't know what it is), and there is one mothership every 3 days, that means over the year there is a likelyhood of what - 25 bpcs, and then there is the issue of actually building one, because you aren't going to press go in jita.

    (b) running the content to get the mothership spawned is visible as map stats visible globally.

    (c) the progress to the mothership is visible.

    (d) The same content (1 drop or whatever excepted) is available in HIGHSEC and pays really well, and allows people to run the content more often, and with more extreme fits.

    (e) incursions are permanent content. there is no rush for individuals to do.


    None of the above are likely to be true of the blood raider content, and we do not know what scale decisions CCP will settle on. If its something that a sovereign standing defense fleet can reship to and deal with in half an hour when it pops locally, then I would imagine they would be run.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


    Well, those rat fleets are just one step away from being 100% player like: make them bring 1,200 ships instead of 850, and they will crash the node. And then imagine the headlines: "EVE Online adds new AI so smart it breaks the game to defend itself!" or "EVE Online: the game to hat refuses to play itself when it's losing against players".

    Meanwhile PCU will keep going down (right it is below last year's in the same dates), but that's a years long habit and there's no sign that EVE suffers from it.


    EVE still dieing since 2003.

    I also think that yes, they should be allowed to test their rat fleets on the test server, and when testing their rat fleets on the test server, things should be expected to break, and since they escalate vs forces in wormhole content, I imagine they may well do escalating with this thing, and they need to probably tune that to not break the servers, by learning about what does.

    They may have to ultimately have the NPCs stand down and blueball players that excessively escalate in an attempt to farm them.

    Simply having a 1000 unit rat ball running at all is also imo pretty good press for the game, as would be a bombing run taking out a 1000 unit rat ball.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:


    But the second thing is even more foolish. CCP has tried all that "smarter but fewer enemies" thing. They do it with burner missions (that most people ignore), Drifters (that most people avoid like the plague) and Mining operations (which almost every PVEr knows is not worth the hassle).



    To be honest I actually quite enjoyed the burners (I did some L4 missions this year to see burners specifically, wasn't playing much when they were released), and I lost some navy gear, an enyo and a daredevil, so they also achieved the purpose of blowing up stuff and also IMO if you don't cheese past them with a long range web, they also train the basic disciplines of getting an opponent locked and tackled immediately so you don't become kited and dead, which is an improvement on a regular L4.

    I'm not going to calculate it exactly, but the frigate burners seem to be worth about 3m/minute for me to do, which is an extremely favourable number and if I was going to run missions all day, would increase my income.

    Quote:


    The whole "make PVE more like PVP" mantra is stupid. It indicates a person who does not even do combat PVE. There is a reason most PVE in this game is still people doing missions and anomalies when all this "better PVE" CCP has been adding since 2012 exists.


    I was ratting in a vexor a couple of days ago when a defense fleet friendly tackled a passing t3d, and I just warped to the fight, locked scrammed and webbed the target. Even if the t3d had killed our tackler, we'd still have downed the target. It would be even better if the scram was a common tool used in pve instead of a chain around my capacitors neck.

    Quote:


    It is also why the whole "hidden structures requiring a huge PVP fleet" that CCP announced for the blood raider capitals at fanfest is going to suck btw.


    Nah, blueprint rarity better than absurd material requirements on serp caps, and IMO the more fleet content that is well beyond me +alt scale, the better. Particularly if its desirable enough that people will run into sparsely populated null and take it off the residents, because thats the kind of thing that encourages bears to bite.

    They are trying to build a system that makes rat fleets more like player fleets and IMO that is a great initiative, especially if they are iterating on the system - if they have the content in events, they can vary and improve the system for each event and the event marketing will usually help them apply budget to pve and each time we get an event, we'll have to do experimental efforts to figure out workable strategies, and if the event then ends, we probably won't have them boringly super optimized.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    This is just bad logic.

    "Oh, I'm using the hull with a fit that isn't good for what I'm trying to do, but this one hull does alright so that hull must be fine because it enables my play-style."

    You are trying to use a hammer like a power drill and then complaining when it doesn't work well. You should not expect one particular restricted style of play to work well in every part of the game.



    I'm using my racial high powered multipurpose exploration ship for its intended task.

    This is again a discussion in the context of nerfing a proteus to have vexor scale power, which I'm pointing out that the minor innefficiencies and pecularities of being a drone boat suddenly become an unusable pile of tedium that nobody is going to play.

    Quote:


    The only reason the Proteus is working for you when you try to use it as a drone boat at something drone boats are bad at is because it's really really OP when used correctly. It's like removing screws with a hammer that just blows away the entire block of wood. Yeah it works, but...



    then common sense would fix the overperforming fit, instead of retaining the current balance between the general fits. sentry drones are a weapon intended for pve play (as well as pvp), and drone aggro is mostly intended to afk check.

    Quote:


    He's not putting words in your mouth, he's analogizing your argument to another more common one you might be familiar with and drawing parallels. If that's not what you're saying then you've probably been unclear...



    that is exactly what he is doing.

    Quote:


    It's not optimized for dual-boxing, it's meant to be done with a ship that's actually good at the sites you're running.

    You're using a ship and a fit that you flat out admit isn't particularly good at what you're trying to do. That's not CCP's fault, they should not have to make every piece of content in the game equally accessible to every player's arbitrary decision about what sort of fits they "just like".


    Its acceptable at running the sites *now*. It will not be acceptable if its a covert/nullfiable vexor. and the mobility capability is for me a big reason for choosing a t3. The mobility is part of running sites, particularly if it happens to be an unrated site with a 4 step escalation. Honestly who is going to move a rattlesnake 40 jumps through hostile null.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Coralas wrote:
    The price difference between t1 hulls and t3 allows you to own several t1 hulls with different rigs for the same price and locate them at points of instant travel. t1 rigs are also now at fundamentally disposable prices anyway especially at cruiser sizes.


    Yes, and if you took each of those hulls up against a T3 you would have no more T1 hulls and some guy with a T3 would have a fat killboard for the month.



    This was a debate about nerfing t3s to having the same power as a t1 ship. Which would by definition cause that scenario to not occur. you might need to read the whole context before jumping in.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:


    How many of those cruisers can swap out rigs without destroying them and change the very bonuses of the ship on the fly?



    The price difference between t1 hulls and t3 allows you to own several t1 hulls with different rigs for the same price and locate them at points of instant travel. t1 rigs are also now at fundamentally disposable prices anyway especially at cruiser sizes.

    Quote:

    If doneboats are no good for the task you want to do why bring one in the first place?



    because right now, with the current firepower of a proteus its fine. In the worst case scenario, my drones get in sync with the drone aggro, so that I'm killing 1 battleship between each outbreak, and the targets are not left to regen whilst my drones are bayed, meaning that drone aggro is mostly an afk check (which is largely its purpose). If we reduce the power of the ship further (its already been indirectly nerfed as a drone fit by nerfs to drones), then it takes disproportionately longer to kill individual battleships, which regen more hitpoints during that process, making it take even longer, and then the worst case scenario of drone aggro becomes a different and much larger penalty because a damaged battleship sits there and regens most of its hitpoints.

    Quote:

    This is the incursion argument. What you mean to say is you don't want your isk generating power reduced.


    what you keep doing is typing things that I have not typed and assigning them to me as if I had.

    My income would likely increase if I forced to not solo them with a t3, because I'd be using my alt, and I'd be bringing more firepower. That is what happens when you attempt to debate my motivation when you plainly cannot know what it is unless I tell you what it is. I do not think optimising exploration content for duo play is a good idea.