EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2004-09-13 02:06
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-30 22:27
  • Number of Posts: 86
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Ogopogo Mu

Security Status 5.0
  • O C C U P Y Member since
  • Test Alliance Please Ignore Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Proteus - January] Recon ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Rise: Bringing Solo Back


  • [Video Project] One Man Crew - Collective Solo PvP in EVE Communication Center

    Frantically refreshing page.

  • Save EVE. Remove stacking penalties on speed mods. in EVE Communication Center


  • looking for advice re a recent loss in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Chili Palmer wrote:
    so basically wrong ship for solo activity in a low sec area especially when paired with a high sec player :) thanks for the heads up on where i was failing.

    Well you have a few kills in your record and some not-awful losses, so you're ahead of a vast majority of "high sec players." Also, losing != failing.

    is there away to see how thier ships were fit via killboards or something?

    Not really. You can check their losses and see if they lost the same hulls recently and try to infer from those. From the KM the Ferox was rail-fit, Harbingers are almost always T2 pulse, and Cynabals are optimized for kitey fly-away long-falloff autocannon use, so it's a fair bet they were all operating in medium range. You can check your combat log from this date and time to know what weapons they were firing at you.

    so what about a fit for the omen or hurricane to give an idea of where to start?

    As for ship types, here's nothing inherently wrong with a Drake, just as there's nothing about an Omen or Cane that would have saved you in this particular situation. The primary thing is the lack of a prop. You can get a lot of semi-decent, and always conflicting, fit recommendations on the forums, from your corp mates, or by looking up the lossmails of successful solo PvPers.

  • looking for advice re a recent loss in EVE Communication Center

    Krimishkev wrote:
    Ogopogo Mu wrote:
    You can gatecrash pretty slowly, with a big enough buffer and some luck on your overheated MWD cycle.

    Like I said, a lotta may in there.

    Some truth here. Though its a stretttttttccccchhhh.

    I've done it. It does require enemies making mistakes, but so does a lot of maneuvering.

    OP asked what he could have done with his fit to do better in this situation. Based on his description of events I think a crash/separation attempt would have been his best bet in an HML buffer drake.

  • looking for advice re a recent loss in EVE Communication Center

    You can gatecrash pretty slowly, with a big enough buffer and some luck on your overheated MWD cycle.

    Like I said, a lotta may in there.

  • looking for advice re a recent loss in EVE Communication Center

    You were attacked after a gate jump by 3 ships in roughly your class and lost. No surprise there. The one thing that stands out here is that you have no propmod, which may have allowed you to gatecrash, and if your opponents were dumb and all aggressed, you may have escaped. If not, you may have escaped on the other side, or at least carried the pursuer far off gate, where you may have forced him to drop point or killed him before the other two could re-engage.

    Yeah that's a lot of may in there, but it probably would have been more fun.

  • CCP directly and secretly gifted SOMER Blink 30 Ishukone Scorpions (~450 billion ISK value) in EVE Communication Center

    I am sure that, like myself, many players were drawn again and again into Eve because of
    GHSC assassination plot stories
    Burn Jita
    player-created videos
    giant ponzi scheme news coverage
    dynamic player-generated political content
    lotteries with bad implied odds.

  • My friend needs clothes... in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sadly I believe food on ships comes from dispensers, thus no kitchen, thus nowhere for your female companion to feel "at home."

  • A review of player giveaways with CCP and third party sites in EVE Communication Center

    Caller: All dem purty ships will be dere,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: Fix dem odds and call it fair,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: I know dat payoff will be big,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: I think I smell an RNG rig,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: I hope we move some GTCs dar,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: I think I'll scrub some forums har,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: Make dat cash and den we go,
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

    Caller: I hope Riot Games will hire mo',
    Chorus: Sell dat PLEX before dey quit.

  • Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013 in EVE Information Center

    ITT the Nighthawk is finally fixed by making it harder to train for.

  • Multiple training on one account, in EVE Communication Center

    SassyLassy wrote:
    im trying to get all me charecters to have everything maxed lol. i wanna be that gal who can fly all 4 races of titan perfectly :)

    This is a reasonable goal.

  • What is the purpose of the non-ancillary shield booster? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mars Theran wrote:
    People have hardly ever used Shield Boosters for anything but PvE, with exception to a few fits which functioned well regardless of their limitations. Sleipnir for example seemed to do alright with them anyway; though I suspect it was the measure of the Sleipnirs other strengths that were the deciding factor.

    Nothing has changed.

    Sleips, Cyclones, Maels, maybe Hawks used them because it was in the ship profile. I loved doing in on Feroxes and Rokhs even though it wasn't as practical. Though true, Sleip is a beast.

  • What is the purpose of the non-ancillary shield booster? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Joe Risalo wrote:
    So, in 35 seconds

    x-large ancillary boosts 6860
    x-large II boosts 4200 shield

    In 1 min 35 seconds

    x-large ancillary boosts 6860
    x-large II boosts 11,400

    So, this means that in the first 35 seconds the ancillary is vastly supperior, however, the x-large II can sustain damage for a much longer duration.

    Now, this is assuming you're using standard cap boosters and not navy, but even with navy x-large II would still outperform over the duration in which the ASB would be reloading.

    1) Always assume navy.

    2) WTB ability to run an XLSB II for 1m35s without worrying about cap. (You can do it in a Mael easier, but cap is always a problem.)

    3) The ancillary is used up at the top of the engagement, where the DPS is heaviest, and where a standard booster is more likely to break.

    This last point is important. Assuming the damage at the top of an engagement is highest, the ASB is going to be fine in (presumably) the shield area where you've shored up resistances The standard is more likely to dip into armor, where your resists are terrible. I've had some great small engagements in an active ship where I was on fire for the last half of the fight.

    The extra mid for the cap injector is also critical. It means another invulnerability field (further skewing the numbers in favor of the XLASB), a shield boost amp (the same, slightly less effect but no cap concens), a web (providing range control and some GTFO ability), or a second ASB.

    The practical concerns around standard shield boosters are a bit deeper than paper HP restoration.

  • What is the purpose of the non-ancillary shield booster? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Joe Risalo wrote:
    Ancillary shield boosters have a LONG reload time. Players negate this by fitting more than one.

    However, from what I understand CCP may be changing this.

    So if/when they do change this so that you can only fit one, ancillary shield boosters will only be used in short engagements that don't require prolonged tanking capability while standard shield boosters will.

    I need to do the math on it, but I believe the advantage of the standard shield booster is limited to the reload window of a single ASB, assuming you can maintain your cap for that long. However, in the ~40 secs (more or less depending on heat) that the ASB is running it's repping roughly 160% of the raw shield that the standard booster is repping. This assume you run it solid, which is less likely since you rep so much more per cycle. Running an XLSB II for that long is difficult cap-wise, and you need to run it solid for over a minute to get the same amount back, and have a cap booster in another mid (further hindering tank or tackle), chew up a bunch of cap booster 800s, and play a lot of games to manage your cap. This usually includes not running it constantly so you can maintain point, so realistically by the time you've come close to the raw repair or the 9 charges in an ASB, the ASB guy is reloaded and burst tanking again with an extra mid, no cap loss, and no games moving charges out of a can in the cargo hold.

  • What is the purpose of the non-ancillary shield booster? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    NoT KwarK wrote:
    There are several ships where using a standard shield booster instead of an ASB in PvP is debatable. 100MN Tengus, Nano Sleipnirs and MWD Hawks, just to name a few.

    Why would you mount a standard on a Hawk? Not trolling, curious. I assume the fact that there are no Navy 50 charges has something to do with this.

    A 100MN tengu is possible using a deadspace booster, assuming it can prop out of neut range. But if it can do that why not fit an ASB instead since your strength is the ability to disengage/pull ridiculous range for damage mitigation?

  • What is the purpose of the non-ancillary shield booster? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The introduction of the ASB has eliminated the use of standard shield boosters except for more-or-less permaboosting mission fits. A comparison between the XLASB (meta 0 module) and the XLSB II (meta 5 module) is laughable at best.

    The standard SB T2 compared to the ASB version:

    • Necessitates a cap booster in a mid (unless using an undersized deadspace perma mission fit)
    • Requires more space and cost for the cap boosters in cargo (ASBs carry around a full load each, and the boosters are smaller)
    • Is harder to fit
    • Requires investment in Shield Compensation and much better cap management skills
    • Even if you have the abovementioned skills at max, the standard SB eats your cap almost instantly and doesn't work under neut pressure
    • Is about half as good as the ASB variant in raw HP restored

    The advantages of the standard t2 booster are:

    • Loot pinata missioning/ratting setups
    • If your PvP opponents are totally failfit you have a tiny edge, assuming your damage is also terrible and the fight goes on past 1 minute 20 seconds, but not past 1 minute 40 seconds, you don't have a second ASB, and neither of you has friends.

    I have used standard shield boosters before and after the ASB introduction in V, and ASB fits after they came about. There is no reason at all for me to ever fit a standard booster on any PVP ship anymore (and most PVE ships), partially due to the increased DPS present on the field, and mostly due to the incredible imbalance with the ASB.

    The introduction of the ASB was a ham-handed way of "fixing active shield tanking." It did not; it only introduced ASB tanking and made standard active shield tanking irrelevant. I thought it would make more sense for the ASB to be a pushbutton omgwtf burst tank that is widely available (as it is now, maybe slightly nerfed), while the standard booster tank would be improved in cap use and HP restoration, making it a more viable option for pilots with high skills and better cap management. Better shield boosting, little more cap-friendly, probably not as good as an ASB but more manageable and sustainable.

    Or just admit the standard shield booster is for limited types of PvE only.

  • 5% Damage Bonus on Ferox Petition.. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gods Messenger wrote:
    Ferox = HAM Boat of Win

    please make it happen

    support this idea

    If only the Caldari had a BC platform that could mount a bunch of HAMs...

  • Bounty: 20% payout of hull; not enough. in EVE Communication Center


    Exploiting insurance ahoy.

  • Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future! in EVE Information Center

    Holy One wrote:
    Denegrah Togasa wrote:
    I now understand how you bitter vets got so bitter if this is the kind of thing they do. Cause this skill change thing is just another rich get richer and poor stay poorer.

    I completely fail to see how adding more pointless skills to the game is going to attract more players. I would have much preferred it had they consolidated all the racial skills in to one generic cruiser and frigate tbh. If the idea is to attract more new players, whats the point of this change? Since all us nerds with a billion sp will just get more level 5 skills for nowt.

    I think if CCP had a time machine they would do something like this. The way that ship specialization skills work is arguably backwards. It makes way more sense to have generic baseline skills for ship classes, and race-specific skills for each specialty subclass (interceptor, stealth bomber, command, hac, etc.) Maybe even BCs. You would get mass diversification into racial ships for new players who could then check out other racial ship flavors before spending points on specializing in weapon and ship systems for the ones they like.

    What we've done recently, which is one reason for the over-dominance of the BC class, is to rush to **** Cruiser III and jump straight to BCs. A few more days of weapons crosstraining and now you can finally understand what players of other races were bragging/bitching about. However, to then respecialize in those ships you had to go back to frigate school. (Okay, maybe you could do it with destroyers, but when I was new destroyers were terrible for anything but salvage and arty thrasher ganks.)

    Unfortunately with the new system of breaking out destroyers and BCs, new players have a way longer row to hoe to figure out the style of play they enjoy.

    Oh, and to address the "who cares we get lots of SP" argument, no. We only get inflated clone costs.