[December] UPDATED: Jump Fuel and Jump Fatigue Cap changes

[Querns]

@theRaptor

Due to bad doctrine choices and some poor FCing. Those phoons were much more effective in Hakonen 2 then Hakonen 1 for example as your FCs remembered what a “firewall” was.

So, considering the state of our PVP capability, how are you so worried?

[Arrendis]

@theRaptor

Well I was in every Hakonen fight except one and the sheer weight of goons meant things could have gone very wrong very quickly.

It really couldn’t have. Not with the supercaps in play on only one side.

[Bulky_Tree]

Ahh yeeee. Hakonen 2 was fuuuuun! Did we scare you when we warped right ontop of you? Cause I was scared sitting in a phoon.

Perimeter was best though!

[Sakido_Cain]

@theRaptor

What’s the point of a ■■■■ sov system “to benefit small groups” if everyone is squeezed into major groups through economics anyway?

Your arguments are about as valid as CCP’s when it comes to the little guys. Only a fool believes that any change to help smaller groups doesn’t help larger groups as well, if not even more. We as human beings (no I don’t give a damn what you self identify as) have learned to not just work together, but to work even more effectively as a whole than as a group of individuals. Unless you can remove that simple fact from our nature, you arguments will continue to fail.

[Bulky_Tree]

Very true. They touched us in all the wrong places:(

[theRaptor]

@Querns

So, considering the state of our PVP capability, how are you so worried?

Your PVP capability is considerable. But that is irrelevant because I don’t set alliance policy (Gobbins hates it when I am right).

[Arrendis]

Eh, they need to find some demand for it. The reason it was reduced in cits/reactions was that players complained about the workload of keeping everything fueled. So:

Keep everything fueled? Complaints.
Don’t? Complaints.

vOv

[Nasar_Vyron]

Except those who complain about keeping things fueled don’t have a leg to stand on because it’s pure laziness. We kept POSes fueled for how long? Suddenly a new structure comes out and they feel they shouldn’t be held to remotely the same expectation. They want free asset safety and high defense for no continued cost? What kind of logic is that when a POS always required fuel to maintain a shield and offered no such asset safety?

[theRaptor]

@Arrendis

It really couldn’t have. Not with the supercaps in play on only one side.

With better strategy I think you could very well have killed enough faction BS to win the ISK war.

[Querns]

@Nasar_Vyron

Except those who complain about keeping things fueled don’t have a leg to stand on because it’s pure laziness. We kept POSes fueled for how long? Suddenly a new structure comes out and they feel they shouldn’t be held to remotely the same expectation. They want free asset safety and high defense for no continued cost? What kind of logic is that when a POS always required fuel to maintain a shield and offered no such asset safety?

Did you miss the Vegas presentations or something?

[Bulky_Tree]

We kinda did win the isk war no matter:) But not in Hakonen, can´t fight supers like that mate.

[Nasar_Vyron]

The fact that they are looking into doing something similar in the future? Yes. But that makes the current changes all the more unnecessary because they aren’t going to go back and revert the current changes.

[Nibium_Akabane]

Are we talking about the Fuel Changes or how goons are bad in everything they do?

[theRaptor]

My point with that comment was why do we have to suffer ■■■■ mechanics if small groups are doomed anyway?

I’d rather be dodging Goon supercap blobs as they blew up our SBUs then do another round of fozziesov.

[Querns]

@Nasar_Vyron

The fact that they are looking into doing something similar in the future? Yes. But that makes the current changes all the more unnecessary because they aren’t going to go back and revert the current changes.

No, the fact that they’re going to make the shield RF layer be vulnerable 23/7 and make the armor RF layer be contingent on having a fueled service module.

[Arrendis]

@Nasar_Vyron

Except those who complain about keeping things fueled don’t have a leg to stand on because it’s pure laziness.

Except those who complain about having to use more topes when jumping don’t have a leg to stand on because it’s pure stingyness.

The complaints about POS fueling have existed for as long as POS’s have existed. Arguing that new stuff should suck and be a PITA because the old stuff was is just the stupidest form of the sunk cost fallacy. Tell me, do you also think we should be dealing with widespread lead pollution in the air because once upon a time, cars used leaded gas, so now they still have to? Should they still get 13 miles to the gallon from the weight of a 100% steel body, because we didn’t used to have fiberglass body-panels on cars? Should snowblowers still weigh 300 lbs because in the 1960s, they didn’t have strong, lightweight plastic resins to make the body and augurs out of?

Something sucked. They made something better. THAT’S NOT A BAD THING.

And “laziness” is just “hey, I want to spend my time in the game doing something other than fueling pos’s”. I’m sorry if you don’t have a life and can’t imagine that for some people, EVE is more and more of a thing they do ‘when they get the time’, but demanding that just because you had to walk to school in hip-deep snow, uphill, both ways, they should have to, too? That’s just ridiculous.

[Nasar_Vyron]

Yes, that’s part of early next year. But again, that’s still tethering and asset safety at zero cost. I think you’ve missed the point. That change will make it easier to take out citadels without active modules, it will do nothing to actually force a cost on the holder for that safety as the odds of their structure ever being hit is already pretty low.

[Querns]

@Nasar_Vyron

Yes, that’s part of early next year. But again, that’s still tethering and asset safety at zero cost. I think you’ve missed the point. That change will make it easier to take out citadels without active modules, it will do nothing to actually force a cost on the holder for that safety as the odds of their structure ever being hit is already pretty low.

Needing to burn fuel isn’t a cost?

[Arrendis]

@Nibium_Akabane

Are we talking about the Fuel Changes or how goons are bad in everything they do?

Clearly, we’re being bad about talking about the Fuel Changes, too.

[Nibium_Akabane]

just keep talking, at the end of the day organised alliances (Goons) always will be better at anything…