EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-01-04 14:24
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-01-29 00:28
  • Number of Posts: 811
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 547

Deacon Abox

Security Status -3.4
  • Justified Chaos Member since
  • Spaceship Bebop Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Ship & Fit for L2 Security Missions in EVE Gameplay Center

    My advice to you is go drones. Almost every ship has a drone bay so sp you invest in drones will never really be wasted. A punisher will get you through level 1. You can then train into an arbitrator for level 2s. Level 3 go with a prophecy. Level 4s you could even use an Armageddon.

    The Amarr drone destroyer I did not mention because for a fair number of level 2s a destroyer with newish skills will not have enough tank. A cheaply fit cruiser will have more survivability.

    The nice thing about the arby is it has sufficient kids you can even shield tank. This is rare for amarr ships. The arby and later the geddon can fit into pvp ship comps as well. Save the tech II laser training for later.

    It is possibly difficult for you to imagine at this stage but eventually you will have all four races of ships trained. But for now the amarr drone boats will serve you best for missioning. Nothing sucks worse than shooting lasers at rats that laugh off em damage.
    I will try to post some fitting advice when I am no longer riding the subway. 😃

  • LVL 1-3 Amarr Mission Fit for New Player in EVE Gameplay Center

    Under Amarr you have two main tech I ship progression paths. I am more partial to the drone path than the lazor path. For PVE drones are better simply because you can tailor your damage to rat weaknesses. With lazors you will have to decline any angel missions. But lasers can be satisfying visually.

    Drones : Tormentor or Dragoon LVL I, Arbitrator LVL II, Prophecy LVL III, Armageddon LVL IV

    Lasers : Punisher or Coercer LVL I, Omen or Maller LVL II, Harbinger LVL III, Apocalypse LVL IV

    The drone line will also present future pvp possibilities as fleets often like the neuting bonuses on the Dragoon and Geddon, or the ewar for the Arby.

    Regardless, there comes a time when you have almost all the ships trained and you can choose the best tool for the job, whatever race it may be.

  • Return to EvE after long and running missions in EVE Gameplay Center

    Follow DMCs suggested ship categories per mission level.

    It looks like you may have trained more gunnery than drone skills judging by the Myrm being the odd one out of your owned ships. However, if you really want to do better at missions you should keep the Myrm and swap the Mega for a Domi. Then you can slap on a MMWD or a LMWD to either the Myrm or the Domi and blast things from a hundred km away with sentry drones. Missions will be easier and quicker. The Domi is a wonderful level 4 mission ship.

  • How to do Level 2 missions with brawling? in EVE Communication Center

    For the kind of brawling you seem to want to do in missions, use a cruiser with a web. Then also know when not to click orbit, or at least not a tight orbit with your prop mod still on. You will hit things fine then, with either guns or missiles.

  • Dominix Navy Level 4 fit in EVE Gameplay Center

    Lvl 4s are better sniped imo. Get them done quicker. Also, pita to move around and tackle mission rats for blasters. Navy Domi can mjd and snipe missions clean with sentries and 425s. Once the MJD came into the game a tank has become less and less important for missions. I put on a minimal armor tank with omnis and painter and cap battery or injector in mids, just in case. And then put damage mods and damage control in lows, again just in case of disconnect.

    Anyway, lvl 4s are not where the excitement is imo. Lvl 4s are something to do when your wife or your work schedule only gives you an hour or so to log on. Sad For that a snipe navy domi is fine.

    The excitement is in pvp, when the above two overlords grant you more than a couple hours to be logged on.P

    Also, OP, have your first like.Smile

  • Any questions for tomorrow's o7 show? (Thursday Oct 29) in EVE Communication Center

    Yes, are you going to rethink the destruction of the sp system with your recent blog saying sp can be sold and bought. Oh and the blood raider accelerators. Camels nose . . .

    This account ends in a few hours. Would like to hear a reason to resub. But prepared to hear that you are going to keep destroying the game from within.Ugh

  • CCP lawlessness - about how CCP ban players without explanation in EVE Communication Center

    MAXBAN UNDELL

    am I doing this right?

    also, ibtl

  • What happens now with the Skillpoint trading idea? in EVE Communication Center

    What happens now is some more people leave this deteriorating game. It is losing its soul. It is catering to the instant gratification generations. The time based sp system was one of the key elements, along with permanent pvp losses, that differentiated this game from others and made it difficult and simultaneously great.

    This was a good game. I began playing it in 06. In my day you started with **** for sp and trained learning skills. You waited almost half a year to fly a ****** tier 1 BC fit with named modules, and you liked it. Now the game is rapidly sucking as it morphs into just another clone of all the other **** MMOs on the market.Straight

    It is doubtful that the selling of sp will slow or reverse the decline in players. In the short term is will probably accelerate it. For those of you that stay I wish you luck. There will probably be a few rich idiots that purchase buttloads of sp, bling out some expensive dream hulls, and lose them in extraordinarily ******** ways. But I wont be here to see it with you.

    No you cant have my stuffs. It will rot on a blade somewhere in London, as I shuffle off into the sunset with my cane.Pirate

  • [December] Balance Smorgasbord in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Meh.

    None of this matters now with direct sp purchasing coming. Already canceled my last two accounts. Eve will no longer be true to itself. Have liked the balancing effort. But fotm chasing will just remain and get worse with direct sp purchasing. Eve is dead, thanks for all the fish, and no one can have my stuffs etc. It will just remain as digital rot on whatever blade server remains. laters.Straight

  • Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading in EVE Information Center

    Lol, 83 pages already.

    Anyway,

    It's dead Jim.

    7o

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lady Rift wrote:
    those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat.
    its says so right beofre the % are listed.

    OopsLol at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.Oops

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Harvey James wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

    Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
    A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

    Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
    A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

    Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
    A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

    Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
    A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.


    86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

    They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.

    afkalt wrote:
    If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships.

    Agreed. Flight time is better for reduction. Flight speed reductions just invite more abuse of ridiculous ship speed fits and tactics.

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
    To be perfectly honest, the introduction of missile disruptors seems completely pointless to me right now. Are Drake fleets blotting out the sky? Are Cruise Ravens an actual thing and I hadn't noticed?

    If these are imlemented there will be four ways to completely nullify the damage of a missile fleet: firewall, outrunning the missiles, warping out once the volley is on its way, and disrupting their range. And since mitigating missile damage is already much easier than avoiding gun damage (fly fast vs. maximize transversal) this just adds to the pile of reasons missiles are in such a bad spot overall.

    A couple of proposals:

    - If you're removing the old advantage of missiles of not being susceptible to ewar, let them have critical hits now.
    - Buff HML and Torp application; also cruise missile speed.
    - Remove firewall; I personaly think it's great, but its just not fair for so many counters to exist to a weapon system with subpar damage and application to start with.
    - Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P

    You forgot to add TDs to turret counters P They are quite popular in that regard.

    Cruise Ravens will never be an actual thing outside of pve because delayed damage will always be there. There is no buff or nerf that can affect any other characteristic of cruise missiles enough to make Ravens a pvp thing. The only reason drone boats are a fleet doctrine is sentries. There would be no Ishtars if they had to wait for slow as molasses heavy drones to plod from one target to another. Gilas are actually niche because of the ridiculous buff on mediums. If it weren't so over the top you probably wouldn't see them either. Delayed damage is what messes with large long range missiles.

    As for Drake or Navy Drake fleets it is still too early to tell what affect on usage has resulted from the BC rebalance.

    Missile speed can only go so far. Years ago there was an overall speed nerf on ships because it was causing severe problems with the games computations. Again, missiles can only be made to go so fast before they present a similar problem. Fozzie would know where that threshold is, but I suspect it is rather near to current missile speeds or it would be an obvious adjustment to help missiles. Maybe there is a little room for increased missile speed.

    Similarly, when you mess too much with explosion parameters you risk making any missile good for any size or speed ship. Then missile ships dont have to think and have no counters. Turrets have tracking parameters radii, optimal, and falloff. At long range where the angular motion of a target is low, but the target is still within optimal the long range large turrets will hit, and will blap. But increase the angular motion enough and they miss completely. One has to avoid the clicking of approach if you are in something small going after something large. HMs used to be good for hitting just about anything. Now they are not. This is good. If you want critical hit calculations for missiles then say hello to complete misses as well, even if the missile is otherwise caught up to the target and exploding fast enough.

    Firewall has been recently nerfed. It takes some thinking though. For instance, if you just blindly keep shooting the same type missile into a smartie and don't figure out what damage type smartie you are dealing with then too bad. Firewall was only a player invention to somehow overcome the missile spam of massed Drakes. Smarties were originally meant and still work as anti drone defense. If the Drake fleets reappear we will see what effect the nerf had.

    Certainly ship v missile speed should be looked at again. Missiles should have an advantage. That people can construct ridiculous speed ships means some of the speed mods need some nerfing imo. You may not have been around for the past speed nerf but it was a very heated flame war on the forums. But I think most would agree now that the game is better for it.

    Your last comment is just silly. CCP devs are not and never have been concerned with Caldari over Amarr or vice versa or any combination. Even if it has felt that way. For a long time Amarr was total ****. Gallente was **** for a while until the DDAs. Believe me, since 2006 I have never seen the game in as good a state of balance as it is now. Well except maybe when sniper BSs ruled fleet warfare. Because there was no one racial sniper BS that was clearly better than the others. But then there were plenty of problems associated with that era that are thankfully gone now.

    These new modules make the game combat tactics more complex. This is good. And it will be a continuing dance of adjustments. So much better now than year after year of Drake fleets in the not so distant past.

    To those saying, but defender missiles. Argh. Those things have been ass stink from the getgo. And there have been dev posts about how complex and taxing on resources the coding would have to be to fix them. Defender missiles might actually work better as anti drone weapons since they go after the closest thing and drones in orbit don't move as fast as missiles. MTD modules are better imo. Easy to see them as electronic jamming pointed specifically at missiles to make their guidance computers waste fuel from faulty flight paths or explode in the wrong place etc.

    Careful though if defenders do get reworked to anti drone. Because then a lot of changes will come. Including the necessity of a launcher slot on just about every ship. And if drones become too killable then hello another round of drone buffs. And so it goes

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fourteen Maken wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


    You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.

    That is because they had to be careful not to tip missiles into op status especially when they had no working dedicated antimissile ewar in the game. So now they are buffing those new missile modules.

    I don't know how long you have been playing this game but about 4 years ago iirc there was an attempt to rework missiles and the test server quickly showed it didn't take much for them to become massively op. Missile tweaking is probably their most difficult weapon system to get right. Not much room for error between useless and clearly op. Taking smaller steps is the right thing for the balancing team to do.

    Thankfully now it wont just be a game where TD hookbills can neuter turret frigs. Hookbills and Garmurs and such will have to deal with the possibility of ewar ******* their **** up. This is good for the game.

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fozzie, it seems we have all forgotten the TD drones.Question Will they now get a missile disruption effect too? They should.


    Also, please reduce the base turret and missile effects of these mods, and claw back the loss with increased buffs for the specialized TD boats so as to compensate.


    And please consider my TP and TP boat idea before any more nerfs to drone boats and drones themselves. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6077768#post6077768 Scripts for painters would be ok because painters would still be the weakest racial ewar relative to the other racial ewars. And the TP drones will have to get both effects as well.

    Hmm, TP drones to affect target ship drone performance, that work better than defender missiles ever did.Lol

    edit: of course it all would have been more elegant to have working defender missiles and or point defense turrets. But mid slot modules and ewar drones will have to do. Surely the coding and taxing of computational resources is a huge hurdle for defenders and point defense turrets.

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fourteen Maken wrote:
    "Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs" - hyperbole.

    The Navy Brutix has a 200k EHP hulltank with full tackle, cap booster, neut and a smaller sig radius. Can't even get close to that with a pvp fit Navy Drake with tackle. Navy Drake is the most agile but we're talking about ~1 second align time, hardly classes it as "stupidly" above par and it pays for these strengths with lower DPS and no utility high.

    Theoretically the tank on the Navy Drake is very good if you don't have to fill your mids with tackle and application mods, but it's unlikely to make it as mainline dps in a fleet doctrine. The t1 Drake has nearly as much tank and higher dps for a fraction of the cost but it's not being used extensively because of delayed dps and the need for dedicated tackle/ewar.

    Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. That agility does a lot to evade those hulltanked Brutixes you worry about.

    BCs are not solo ships. If these were frigs I would worry. They are not though. They are still relatively lumbering lumps that the bulk of the playerbase will not ride through lowsec or null looking for the elusive solo fight in.

    It is the fleet comps that we have to be careful of. There will not be fleets of hulltanked Brutixes for the obvious reason of no logi and no spider because remote hull tank modules blow chunks. There may be fleets of perma mwd Drakes and yes Navy Drakes. Hell people run around in tech3 and command ship fleets. Navy Drakes would be nbd.

    And just about every fleet comp needs dedicated tackle and ewar. BCs will be no different.

  • [December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Asuna Crossbreed wrote:
    So there is a lot of arguments for having missiles just be affected by tracking disruptors and not have their own module. I happen to agree with this. but I think the scripts that focus on missiles should still added for the weapon disruptors. Also like damps and jams before them the base module needs a small nerf and then the bonus buffed on the bonused hulls.

    The reasons for this.

    Ships that fit Weapon disruptors don't have very many mids, that in combination with scripts and the redundancy that is present in damps and ecm would be lost making fitting them a gamble at best.

    The reason for the nerf is to make these ships both more necessary and powerful, because as of now weapon disruption is a joke on these hulls, not because of the bonuses, but because they have few mids and limited effect where the WDs can be spread throughout the fleet.

    Its been said many times itt, having one scripted TD would make every ship a TD whore. Nobody wants that. It was not on this character, but I remember the time of the multispec of doom. Do not ever go back to that day.

    Agreed that TDs in general for both missiles and guns should have weaker base stats and then give a buff to TD boats for using them. This also will avoid any possible filling of mids with TDs on any ship with a spare mid. And it will increase the utility of a class of ships that have been lacking in comparison to the likes of griffins, blackbirds, maulus, and Celestis.

    Now about painters. Nerf the base stats on them. Then buff back the loss on the ships specialized for painters. These ships need more desirability. Except the Golem. It really should have never got Minmatar ewar bonus in the first place.

    Then, how about scripting them. One script to keep the present effect, increased sig. The new other script would be a drone communication interference script. It could have a drone control range and drone tracking effect. Neither should be very strong, but just enough to be noticeable and make the fitting of DLA and Omnis work for it. And this would give Minmatar an anti drone ewar since Amarr is getting an anti missile ewar.

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Trinkets friend wrote:
    First impressions:
    Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. *italian kissing motions*
    Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks.
    Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake
    Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler.
    Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs.
    Harby: Eh. Slooow.
    Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore.
    Myrm: Same-same.

    Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother.
    Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp.
    Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat
    Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow.

    I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them".

    Nope.

    The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie?

    Actually, the Ferox win here is also related to getting a ship bonus that enhances the class bonus, while no other ship in class does. Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs. The dps on missile boats is not as important as on turret boats.

    Otherwise excellent analysis of this below standard rebalance pass.

    I have liked most rebalancing from Fozzie, Rise et al, but this was a real disappointment and poorly done.Sad

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad...

    Yes. Considering there was a never a vexor navy online. The navy vexor is a good ship, but it does not and never has constituted a complete fleet comp. 3 years though of Drakes Online, with that ship at the top of the pvp kill stats by at least double the second place ship, was very very bad. Any time of Navy Drakes Online would just be adding insult to injury.

    Stitch Kaneland wrote:
    Tiericide also happened in that 4 year window after drakes got dropped/nerfed. The meta is not the same and almost every other ship has been rebalanced for the better. A navy drake MWD'n around will have the sig of a moon. Hop in a BS and shoot it down. You will have the range/tracking/utility to handle it without much issue. Apoc maybe? Will it have a role? The anti-drake.

    Now if you take a cruiser to a BC fight, then id say working as intended. Same way you dont take a frig gang into a destroyer/t3d gang, unless you have the right gang comp.

    We shall see. Since judging by past performance, at this point the proposed changes will become the changes. Wonder if Fozzie is even still reading this thread.

    Funny you should mention different ship classes since you appear to have no problem with the Navy Drake counter requiring an upship to a BS Apoc or Napoc. Btw, Apocs were used as a counter to the regular T1 drake blobs of 3 years ago or whenever.

    Fourteen Maken wrote:
    A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes.

    I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies!

    Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too.

    The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better.

    In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range.

    The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better.

    You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has.

    Also, I think you underestimate the pve market. As I said it is healthy in a different manner than pvp ships are due to pvp losses. Pve favored ships find a continuing stream of buyers. Some of these are new casual highsec missioners. This is how Navy Ravens continue to sell even as they are rarely used in pvp and suffer very few pvp losses. Likewise Drakes and Navy Drakes will continue to sell extremely well for wormhole pve due to the ridiculous passive tanking abilities. An ability few other ships can match and those that can match or exceed in this all have a larger pricetag.

    Lastly, BCs are not soloing ships. So to talk about hypothetical one on one battles between these ships to miss the point. It is all about whether a ship can make a fleet comp, or whether it can stupidly sit like a tanking brick and missile spew in pve content, that will determine the number of sales. Navy Drakes will do both and too well.

    edit: And to reiterate. It is not very good design to give a range bonus to the entire class, well except for the drone ships which are left as dren in this class, and then to have a ten percent per level additional range bonus for one of those ships. This only ensures that one ship, the Ferox will be best at what the entire class is meant to do. So clearly Caldari wins this balancing pass with the Ferox and Navy Drake. Both will make fleet comps. The only other ship that might come close is the Fleet Cane, simply for the alpha go boom factor.

  • Hi in EVE Gameplay Center

    This has all happened before . . .

Forum Signature

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.