EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-01-23 18:43
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-08-12 11:43
  • Number of Posts: 134
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Olmeca Gold

Security Status -1.3
  • Pleonexium Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    That is just another illusion. Smart drifters and emergent PvE. We see its implementations in the game. The Blood Raider shipyards and the drifters in wormholes. NPCs are still stupid. They will remain to be stupid. CCP doesn't have the resources to implement meaningful, fun to play PvE in Eve. Even ship controls are not that interesting to provide that. Take WoW for instance. Even Blizzard, with all those resources, finds it hard to keep up with the demand of fresh, interesting PvE. Even when the game controls, abilities etc. are much more interesting than what Eve offers: A few modules and a ship with some stats to move in space. Because you know what? By its own very nature PvE eventually becomes uninteresting and boring if you do the same activity again and again. That's the nature of scripted stuff.

    Eve PvE will never be an interesting game to play. It is merely a tool to provide people ships and means to PvP with. At least for the majority, which plays this game long enough to have tried most forms of PvE and get bored of them. Those smart drifters are a further illusion that a few people like to entertain themselves. What makes Eve very, very special is its unmatchable PvP content. Stories. How social it is.

    Meanwhile, the utmost importance of PvE mechanics is that it determines how the economy goes and it provides content for everyone. It creates the bottom layer, the vegetation of Eve ecosystem. NPCs, bounties and ISKmaking activities are the vegetation that sustains life. People who do PvE are herbivores feeding off that vegetation. People who kill them are the carnivores that feed off the PvErs. There are also people who kill the carnivores that kill the herbivores, and even people who kill those. Ideally, we want Eve ecosystem to be like Galapagos. Full of variety, interesting stuff, stories to tell. An experience to remember.

    Do you know what I think of those WH Rattlesnakes who die to 'smart' drifters? Its a huge, wasted elephant that is left to rot. Creates nothing interesting. Provides no content. Every single ship that dies to PvE is a ship that could have provided fun and content for the rest of Eve.

    I am not saying this because I am a hunter. I too do PvE and get hunted. And if I ever die to drifters, or anomalies, or DED sites, or FW missions, I become doubly upset. I could have died in a PvP fight and provided content and fun to others. It is a ******* waste to die to PvE.

    So, why don't we just catalyze PvP content to fix the economy? Instead of introducing more waste that is not fun for anybody including the pilot that dies? Or instead of clinging the illusion of fun PvE, which will never happen because the game is not that big, CCP does not earn that much money, and they do not have that many employees.

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Axure Abbacus wrote:
    I make no apologizes for asking if this issue should be categorized as a player base issue or a development base issue. It should be the first question to go to when addressing broad issues. Some issues are found and "explored" by dedicated pilots and I respect the Time that goes into finding those issues. "Big alliances are hard to fight" is up there on the list with "Mining is boring" and "Eve is Hard".

    -Allowing Individual Corporations to hold Sov would be a good start.
    - Bringing CODE to Delve would be another.
    -Fighter balance pass is already extracting tears so the Devs are doing their part to address some of the issue.

    The Monthly build report shows 5T built and about 1T destroyed and wallets are fat. It has been this way for some time. The amount of materials sitting in Jita station should have cracked the station in half years ago like an overstuffed sausage. Nothing short of a hard cap on M^3 capacity will change Jita or any other NPC station.

    This is wholly player driven. Segments of the player base do not pay attention to the market environment and adjust for a healthy economy. Industry changes created incentives to move production away from Jita or eat more costs. I once flew in Lonetrek and I know how it was in 2010. I quickly moved to Syndicate and Placid to have fun.



    Let me break your illusion. There is no "player driven" untouchable holy taboo mechanic in this game. That is just some myth people invest/spread to use in arguments about game balance in their favor. The fact is things can be player driven only as much as DRIVING them is allowed by game mechanics, hence CCP.

    E.g. nobody that was not input broadcasting was able to multibox 50+ 300m/hr anom running capitals until Rorqual changes. Now they do. And now some exploit this fact to the fullest. And break the game economy. This is not some emergent gameplay that arose by players' creativity. CCP gave this capability to players with Rorqual changes. CCP can take this away. Same goes with the ability to defend your entire sov with 100 titans on standby in your staging system. It is not a somehow holy mechanic that nobody can touch. It was given at some point, although this point dates very back. Yet, if balance requires so, the mechanic can be touched.

    You realize by your reasoning anything can be argued to be player driven. The usage of pirate battleships are player driven, so why CCP is intervening with their cost? The usage of interceptors in sov warfare was an emergent player driven thing, so why did they interfere with entosis ceptors? We cannot balance anything if your reasoning holds, because it trivially holds for most mechanics, as the balance of most mechanics is directly related to how players use these mechanics.

    PS: Your "bringing CODE to Delve" comment makes me think you don't even know enough about the game to discuss these stuff to begin with.

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Aeryn Atropos wrote:
    Olmeca Gold wrote:

    Again, you might disagree with these if you think these ideas are bad, and you have better ideas. As long as we agree on the problem I would be more than happy.



    I think you are pretty spot on with this. however, you don't address the massive advantage given to defenders by local. This is one of the main factors of risk mitigation, as soon as a potential hostile shows up people can dock up. Anyone that simply monitors local has little to no excuse to be caught. This intel is what makes it so hard for attackers to do anything meaningful, and it is why so much more destruction occurs in Hi and Lo Sec where local is not as useful.


    Oh man, I often get downvoted to hell so I just don't even dare speak about local at this point lol. If I add it to my list most people think I'm just one of these people who demands OP stuff because its in my own self interest. Elsewhere I have argued a local delay for at least recon ships, to solve other problems, such as botting.

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Axure Abbacus wrote:
    So, large well organized alliances affect effects in the Eve Markets? They leverage Capital to generate revenues comparable to a fraction of the principal used. The data related to which areas are farmed is available to those willing to research it.

    It would play out that it is more of a player issue than a developer issue?


    To decide the fair amount of reward one gets from his PvE activity and the fair amount of risk he has to take while doing it is a developer issue. In many Eve trailers you will see it is being advertised as a universe with meaningful risk/reward. If that ratio stops being meaningful, that it is a developer issue.

    Axure Abbacus wrote:
    Those fleets inclined to farm large alliance capital farmers will.


    There is only a handful of such people who can do this in Delve, compared to shitloads of people who do is anywhere else. That is Delve's privilege arising from being the largest titan force. But that privilege is breaking the game. Hence it becomes a developer issue.

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
    I think your over generalizing the issue to one problem but it is an interesting read worth taking note in.

    So what your proposed fix for this?


    1) Nerf the capabilities belonging to most organized alliances of being able to respond to any aggression in their space by instantly counterdropping a regionally uncontestable force. I would go about it in two steps.

    1A) Improve cyno inhibition for the attacker side..Make it so that you cannot light a cyno in a nullsec system unless you have the subcapital dominance in the system. I would imagine two kinds of cyno inhibitors. One is small in volume and cheap. It can be carried by hunters. It has really small AOE that is about 10-15 kilometers. It shuts down active cynoes as well as prevents in active cynoes. You deploy it really close to your target ship, so it cannot light a cyno. The second is a system-wide cyno inhibitor. It can be carried at least by a blockade runner (10k in volume etc). It anchors in perhaps 30 seconds. If the defending force can manage to light a cyno in 30 seconds and get their capitals in then they are fine. But if not then now they have to come in the system by other means, and kill the inhibitor for their capitals. The system wide inhibitor provides a warpable beacon in the system, and has some EHP. To kill it you would need a subcap force in the system. I imagine this would also change the way nullsec conflicts work overall. But I think the change would be toward a more interesting game, as it would diminish the power of having N+1 capitals.

    1B) Nerf capital jump ranges. This is simple. Alliances shouldn't be able to cover huge ranges by only 1 capital jump. There needs to be middle cynoes and some time between capital help arriving to the tackled capital. To balance this change jump fatigue needs to be tweaked, so capitals should be able to move through the Eve cluster at the same speed, although they would need more middle cynoes.

    2) Introduce scarcity. Anoms in a system shouldn't sustain more than 3-5 rorquals or 1-2 ratting supercapital. If you have more people you would need to expand. This is already a path CCP is on, as they just decided to nerf mining anom respawn rates. We need stronger steps here though. Plus, fighter mechanics for Rorquals do not sound to nerf inactive mining does not sound bad at all.

    So what would all these achieve? Firstly you would need to have a local force to shoo off an attacking force. You would need to take gates, middle cynoes, or spread out and coordinate your forces beyond your staging system, etc, instead of instantly being able to respond to agressions in your entire region by 1 capital jump. If you fail to take down the system-wide inhibitor, you can always light a cyno at the next gate. But then the attacker can counter that by bubbling gates etc. A more interesting game for everyone. Overall, alliances would have motivation to de-expand their space.

    Yet, since scarcity is also an issue, they would also have a motivation to expand their space. This would not only solve the issue of really small spaces mining %75 of Eve's materials, but also create meaningful content drivers for people who want to take control of resources and for people who don't want to give them up.

    So in the end you end up with a very meaningful trade off between security and access to more wealth. If you spread your farmers then it will be harder to secure them. If you flock them in the same areas then it won't sustain too much farm. And this balance would both result in a better more sustainable Eve economy, and would provide the very much needed in-game reasons for conflict to the currently stagnant universe.

    Again, you might disagree with these if you think these ideas are bad, and you have better ideas. As long as we agree on the problem I would be more than happy.

    And I don't think I am overgeneralizing, given the huge gap between Delve and the rest of Eve, mine is the best explanation on what distinguishes Delve from the rest.

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    What inflation?


    Its a broad economic belief that increased money supply causes infliation.

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    TLDR: Let's please agree on that the real problem with Eve ecosystem and economy is the amount of low risk that the PvE capitals of the most organized alliances are taking.

    Here are only a few of my prior posts in social media for those who wonder how much I tried to raise this issue and what kind of solutions I have been offering:

    http://www.bombersbareve.com/opinion-balancing-the-ecosystem-of-pve-and-non-consensual-pvp-in-eve/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/48zhap/we_should_talk_nonconsensual_combat_and_hunting/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6aw5rk/rorquals_no_need_to_panic_whaling_is_outlawed/dhhxlyj/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/69gu33/how_to_make_blops_bs_relevant/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/60z4or/blog_living_in_an_upwell_world/dfaql4l/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6ersw2/i_have_an_idea_why_dont_we_make_the_environment/dicjssu/

  • Can We Please Agree on the Exact Problem with the Eve Ecosystem? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Both CCP and the player base are confused about what the economic indices mean, and how to respond to them. In the light of this new unsubbing movement in response to recent changes I am genuinely worried that this confusion will end up Eve losing even more subs. Here is what I think is the problem. I originally posted this on reddit, but I am posting it here in the hopes that I can catch CCP's attention.

    Inflation and immense gaps in mined/destroyed values are economic problems that are real and haunting this game. But these are not general problems caused by the entirety of Eve. These are specific problems emerging from specific regions. These regions are non-exceptionally farmed by organized entities. Some of them include Goons, TEST, C02, NC, Darkness etc. What distinguishes these regions from others is that the entities inhabiting them are admirably organized. Especially Goons.

    Now here is what was wrong all the time. Eve provides organized entities conditions and mechanics to use their capitals in PvE almost risk free. All you need to do is to have a supercap/titan force that is regionally uncontestable. You have it on standby in your staging system, and you have license farm however much you want with your capitals and not lose them ever, provided that they light the cyno for help. As your supercap/titan force is uncontestable, everyday forces, such as a blops fleet, or a roaming fleet exiting a wormhole, will not be able to challenge them and kill your PvE capital. And this is the essential factor that distinguishes these regions that are disturbing the Eve economy. Go and try to hunt PvE capitals in these regions in an everyday fleet, that this is what you will get without exception.

    Here are some knee jerk issues that people had with what I said, when I raised these concerns before. They said they have the numbers that explains the mined value. But Cobalt Edge was mining similar to Delve a few months ago. It was just two alliances, Care for Kids and In Panic. It means that anybody can farm as much as Delve. What happened? HK, a wormhole corp, moved a super force into the region and farmed them, resulting with an immense drop in the amount mined. Meaning that capital forces on standby of these alliances were no longer regionally uncontestable. Exactly as my theory predicts, the mining values were fixed back to normal.

    People also have argued that there are ways to go around this issue. Firstly, you can have your own supercap force like HK did to In Panic. That will work vs. smaller alliances, but not larger alliances, because they will have larger supercap/titan fleets. Unless something like WWB happens, and everybody else unites, this won't happen in Delve. The other potential counter is dreadbombs, which is how PL killed most of the Rorqs in Delve. It works, but it is a minus sum game with lots of SP requirement, which makes it an activity that only a few entities (like PL) can pull off and then sustain. And even PL does not sustain it to a meaningful degree.

    Thirdly, they said organized entities are entitled to their safety because they are organized. To me this entitlement is directly tied to Eve economy. The health of the ecosystem comes first than the free access of nullsec alliances to options that diminish their PvE risk. If the amount of risk/reward in your activity breaks the economy, panics CCP, causes them to make bad moves that hurt everyone, including you, you are not entitled to that particular ratio of risk/reward in your PvE activity.

    So, these few organized alliances already had license to risk-free farm as much as they want, given they had one real people per a few PvE capitals (although some like Gaara took it to the extreme). And then the Rorqual changes hit. Now they have the license to risk farm simultaneously with however many PvE capitals per person. This just accumulated/will accumulate more wealth in the hands of these people, resulting in more accounts, more mining. The more titans you have, the exponentially more you can build. I hope you can see how uninteresting and stagnant this is for Eve.

    CCP tries to address this problem. Some of the moves, like anomaly respawn changes, makes sense. Nerfing PvE capitals does not. It will just hurt the little guys in little regions. I heard Rorquals make 200/300m per hour. If we nerf it to 150, then all you will change for this person with 50 Rorquals is that he needs to mine 10 hours instead of 7 to to plex his account. Any further mining activity per month is still a plus in his wallet. He still has incentive to mine with more and more multiboxed Rorquals. Same goes with anom running supers. As long as you don't lose these ships, you will have incentive to make money off them. Thus a blanket interference with everyone's ISK/hr will not solve the problem. A more localized interference with the amount of risk that is taken by PvE capitals of a few alliances will.

    For the last year I have argued time and again that the low rate of relative risk that PvE capitals of organized alliances were taking was the real problem. Right now I am legitimately worried that this game is getting closer and closer to a crisis that will end up diminishing player count more, because both the player base and CCP fails to acknowledge this problem. My proposed solutions included introducing a balance between scarcity and risk, so that alliances have trade offs in both expansion and de-expansion. The risk balance would be nerfing capital force projection by giving attacker forces better means of cyno inhibition and by nerfing capital jump ranges (although keeping their speed across the universe same). If people have subcaps to go for aid of their capitals, rather than just instantly jumping their entire regionally uncontestable force, then that would make a more interesting.

    You might or might not like my proposed solutions. I am really, fully open to any suggestions. But can we please agree on the problem?

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I like how the entire 'Eve establishment' flames CCP when they are trying to nerf the only way to earn tens of billions of ISK per hour as one person by semi afk multiboxing tens of Rorquals at the same time. This change is an attempt to reestablish everyone else's interests against 50 richest miners in a handful of richest alliances. Don't mind the flames CCP.

  • Forming the Strategic Cruiser Focus Group in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hi everyone.

    I would like to be a part of this focus group.

    On my 10 characters across 4 accounts the single ship type that all of them can use are T3 cruisers. They are not only the main kind of ship I use, I use them in niche ways that I am guessing might be underrepresented in the kind of discussion that is found on Eve related media. T3Cs have been highly versatile to cater for many different needs. Here are some my previous experiences that diverge from the mainly mentioned uses (WH/null fleets etc.):

    Nullsec DED runner hunting with a improved cloaky/mdw/nullified/drone/neut Proteus.
    Small Scale PvP with the same Proteus.
    D-SCAN and combat scan "whalehunting" (hunting for PvE capitals) in nullsec.
    Dualboxing neutralizer Legion/Proteus to camp/kill j-space PvE marauders (and below).
    L4 FW mission running in shield/drone/improved cloak/mwd/12 AU/s Proteuses, which are basically the best ships for this purpose.
    C3 PvE with Tengus and nullsec DED's in Proteuses.
    Combining solo black ops hunting and nullsec exploration with hybrid fit Tengus.
    100 mn wormhole baiter Tengus.
    Remote repair drone Proteuses for small scale PvP fleet doctrines, for wh defense etc.
    Webber, primary drone anchor Lokis for the same doctrines.
    Logi Tengus for blops hotdrops.
    Tengus with 6x faction scrams so your small blops group can hold down a Supercapital.
    Covert Cloaky smartbomber T3Cs to hunt explorers or sabotage frigate sized fleets.
    Hotdropping covert cloaky T3Cs and then switching offensive subsystems via mobile depots.
    Null/WH to Jita low volume valuable item hauling in T3Cs.
    T3Cs as ultimate scanners/explorers in J-space (e.g. using a fully skilled scanner toon in a Tengu with RSS probes, doing wh Ghost Sites in them).
    I even have a salvager/hacker hybridTengu to clear C5 data/relics after killing the NPC's.
    I am sure I have a fit just to steal ISK from people's ESS's in nullsec.

    My impression is that a lot of the discussion so far revolved around more common uses of T3Cs, such as Slippery Petes or other large fleet doctrines (e.g. how they overshadow HAC's etc). I find most of these issues agreeable. But I also believe playstyles I have mentioned above should be at least part of the discussion when it comes to a huge rebalance. I think the ideal rebalance would (1) address the main worries that have been raised so far, (2) while doing that in a way that is as non-invasive as possible for various niche but valuable playstyles that T3Cs have been enabling. I see my role in the group as someone who helps especially to achieve the part (2). Particularly, covert cloaky T3C scene is bound to change a lot with the proposed system in the Fanfest. It has basically been my area of expertise in both solo and fleet warfare (in FCing NPSI fleets that utilize T3Cs) for the past three years. Hence I think I would be a valuable source of feedback for this focus group.

    Thanks for reading.

  • Want to move to wh with few alts - need advice in EVE Gameplay Center

    Doing your c5 static solo works. Don't mind people saying otherwise. 2 remote cap local rep rattles is fine. If you got a third monitor get a golem. It is really easy to establish rep/cap chain with rsnakes and assign drones to the golem and focus on the golem. Geckoes get a really awesome application bonus from painting. You will hit around 800m/hr or more.

    But as you have no back up, each time you do this you need an empty c5 and you need to roll every wormhole in your connection. If you don't warp to the new signature, you are safe as long as no new sig appears or nobody logged off in that wh beforehand. Ideally you also wanna have a prober inside, holding the connection from your hole to the static. A 4 accounts setup is really awesome even if you use the 4th for hole control/probing/wh rolling.

    You do not actually need to escalate. Doing the drifter is less ISK/hr instead of just warping to the new site. Given you are doing this in your static you have lots of sites.

  • Bounty Hunting in EVE Gameplay Center

    Glitch Online wrote:


    So, you like playing the 'bad guy' with 0 risk? if you have (-) standing, its not because you've been an outstanding citizen.


    No, I'd rather playing the bounty hunter in a balanced, well thought system. Unfortunately yours is not.

    NPC standings is the worst thing you can tie a bounty system into. Say at some point in my career I did FW. I will have bad standings for the opposing faction. Then I make a nullsec trillionaire lord mad on social media, reddit or forums. He buys a toon with right standings, keeps purchasing LP and places infinite bounties on me. What does my FW career even have to do with this nullsec lord? Nothing. What did this nullsec lord do to benefitr this NPC faction? Nothing. But you just give him means to **** me.

    Everyone has that one NPC corp for which they have negative standings. There are a lot of ways you can get - standings for an NPC faction. Why am I a "bad citizen" because I did FW? Why am I a bad citizen because I decline some missions from an NPC corp. I didn't gank anyone? I didn't pirate? Also, there are shitloads of "bad citizens" with +10 security status and all positive NPC standings in this game. NPC standings mean nothing to show who's the bad guy or pirate. They are mostly PvE means to access missions and LP store and earn ISK.

    Meanwhile, the real 'victims' often will not have the chance to place bounties, as their gankers will most likely not have negative standings for NPC factions which they have positive standings. So you not only have given nullsec lords means to **** someone's life, but also didn't solve any of their issues as well.

    You sound like a perfect hisec carebear mission runner with zero knowledge over anything else in this game. You died to someone and want to place a meaningful bounty on the ganker. But you need stop your arrogance and heed people's advice. Try to research and learn this game's mechanics fully before making suggestions. Thanks.

  • Bounty Hunting in EVE Gameplay Center

    Glitch Online wrote:
    Olmeca Gold wrote:
    If you're gonna offer a change to the bounty hunting system you need to be careful about two things if you want to be taken seriously:

    1) The hunted shouldn't be able to get the reward by losing a cheap ship to his alt or by colluding with someone else.
    2) An Eve trillionaire shouldn't be able to completely **** someone's life in Eve making the game unplayable by placing infinite bounties on that person.

    This proposal suffers from error number 2. You can stop discussing it now. Future proposals should be vary of the above conditions.


    Reading Comprehension is your friend...


    General comprehension is your friend. You do offer a means for trillionaires to **** up someone's life by placing infinite bounties. If you think "awarding 1 bounty at once" or bringing NPC standings/spaces into the picture solves this issue you don't know how Eve works. When someone constantly has bounties on him sooner or later he will be stripped from all her SP, and stop logging in, if the reward is worthy for the hunter. And you want the reward to be worthy.

    I advise you to get a broader grip on Eve mechanics and ecosystem before coming up with anymore suggestions to bounty hunting. There is a reason why the system is untouched since forever.

  • Bounty Hunting in EVE Gameplay Center

    If you're gonna offer a change to the bounty hunting system you need to be careful about two things if you want to be taken seriously:

    1) The hunted shouldn't be able to get the reward by losing a cheap ship to his alt or by colluding with someone else.
    2) An Eve trillionaire shouldn't be able to completely **** someone's life in Eve making the game unplayable by placing infinite bounties on that person.

    This proposal suffers from error number 2. You can stop discussing it now. Future proposals should be vary of the above conditions.

  • Reporting permabanned people back in game in EVE Communication Center

    Why does it matter whether it is frowned upon or not? Just do it if you like.

  • Multiplexing/Input Automation : Take 2 in EVE Communication Center

    1) Having multiple clients open (with or without particular 3rd party programs) is called multiboxing not multiplexing. Simultaneous input across accounts is now called input broadcasting. Automating input is called input automation.

    2) Input automation/broadcasting is banned, multiboxing is not. Same programs can offer both functionalities. Its not a matter of what program you use. You shouldn't automate or broadcast input.

    3) Yeah CCP should be more vigilant to combat input broadcasters a pursue reports. Maybe they don't prioritize these people because being the active accounts they are, they are a source of income? But I genuinely think these people hurt the game, especially the economy, especially when they bot anomalies for ISK. At any rate I think CCP should prioritize them more.

  • [[ critical intel ]] solo combat sites in [ C6 ] with a paladin ? in EVE Gameplay Center

    There is more to wh sites than being able to tank the dps. You need to be able to tank neuts. In some c6 sites you will face above -200 neuts, so you need to have surplus cap to resist that kind of pressure. Your paladin will not hold vs c6 neuts. No solo marauder can both tank the dps and neuts in any c6 site. You can simulate it on EFT\pyfa.

    Even assuming you can tank the neuts there is the issue of remote rep. Some waves will be repping each other at around 500 ehp per second so good luck breaking through it with your 500 dps. Even if you were able to break the reps its gonna take a long long time. You are better off doing c4s in terms of isk per hour.

  • Solo PVP in wormholes - Weapon of choice, fitting and methods? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Depends on the kind of hunting method you have. My personal preference is stalking wormholes for juicy PvEr targets. I used to use a covops neuting legion and a drone/neut/nullified/cloak+mwd proteus (if you can tackle the target with another ship, this Proteus will perform much better than a Stratios). Both hulls and pods were blinged (maybe 5b in total). You can take down up to solo c4/c5 marauders plus few people warping in with that kind of setup. Site runner Tengus or Rattlesnakes etc. are also among favorite preys.

    Problem is that it will take days for you to find a suitable target, and for the target to get out and start doing sites, and for you to be online simultaneously. And watchlist changes kind of ****** this kind of hunting hard (but problems of nullseccers were ofc more important). So if what I'm after is juicy PvE ships I'd rather BLOPS hunt in nullsec instead these days. For wormholes you can go for less hardcore, more daily kind of hunting with a cheaper duo. If you are not afraid of losing your ship (I was due to the bling) you can always find causal fights in random ships of your choice.

    PS: Don't pay attention to those who offer bombers. They are the best starter ship of hunting in wormholes but that's it really.

    PS2: I think Chance is talking Stratios being the king of "real" solo in which he is right. But for dualbox setups a t3 specialized in scanning/tackling/neut warfare and a t3 specializing in dps can outperform alternative setups with one or two Stratioses.

  • T3 cruiser numbers in EVE Communication Center

    Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
    most T1 frigates at least have 12 slots totally. Even if one slot can only fit one of the 3 possible modules, there' will be millions of combination totally. But does any certain T1 frigate hull have more than 100 practical fits?



    I think this claim is made commonly and lacks imagination. T3s are my primary ships and there are some very awkward combos that suits the job at hand best

  • "Alpha Clone" is not "Budget Player" in EVE Communication Center

    Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
    This was the death of more than one MMO already. Sales skyrocket until everyone has the packs that fit the personal playstyle. But that is a onetime effect because you sold what you developed so far. But it is very tricky to develop new content because you need the cash back up front and if one, ONLY ONE, extension fails for whatever reason things get nasty funding wise.

    When the players tell you: “Nah, that new thing is not for me, I will stay with what I already bought, perhaps next time?” you’ll run out of options for a "next time" pretty soon. And players always find a reason to not buy an extension, it’s the internet and no matter what you do, 50% won’t like it just because.

    whine, whine.. don't want to PVP.. whine
    Why don't you just buy some PVP ships and shot back?
    whine.. now they want me make to spend real money too.. whine..

    And don't tell me exactly that wouln'd happen.


    Here is how you access to a new playstyle in Eve: You grow your SP, get into a ship, start playing in a particular way that the ship enabled you. A lot of ships have different roles and open up playstyles. My proposal would just provide a shortcut to this, also giving people things to aspire to. I dont think it would crash Eve. But sure whatevs. Its not like it will get implemented from this thread.

Forum Signature

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.