Hello, I am a beginner player, that again tried your game, and again is quitting,
I retry the game after 8 month of quitting, i have 10 millions isk in bank, I outfit 1 destroyer for 7 millions (1 module cost like 5 million but i thought it essential to the build)
Then i do lvl 2 mission because, lvl 1 are trash remuneration for my game time.
I go missions again and again that reward 250 k isk and grind back my millions over several hours.
then there is a trash 120 k isk mission but still i do it because refusing is a no go.
then there is a 660 k ish mission, i check the difficulty = 2.1
So i say okai, maybe its a long mission why not.
it was a dozen cruiser and battlecruiser with 1 sucking my cap to zero and having all its resistance at 70%
I lose my destroyer and i didn’t had yet recovered my initial isk investment, so in total i lost what feel like 10 hour of gameplay (but is maybe 5 hours, i didn’t follow the time well)
And it was casual PvE not even savage PvP.
So I am quitting again because it was not achievement, it was not obstacle overcoming, it was not simple significant failure, it was crushing.
And crushing is too much for me in casual PvE.
I expect my crushing in high competitive null-sec PvP.
Not in casual PvE, not in ganking one-sided PvP in high-sec.
Energy neutralization effects from ships are short range only. You can either stay out of danger by not closing in, since deadspace NPCs don’t really move fast enough to catch small ships, or you can use fits which are immune or highly resistant to capacitor warfare.
Destroyers aren’t better then frigates for PVE, and in most situations they aren’t better for PVP, either. It’s a common misconception from new players that more DPS on the simulation page means faster ratting, Staying alive w/o having to warp off grid all the time, dictating the ongrid movement pattern rather then getting it dictated, damage application on moving targets, is only a small list of things that are at least as important as DPS.
A Coercer can fit 8 focused beam lasers and snipe the neuting NPCs from safe distance, but if it’s fit to do so, it consumes most of it’s fitting (for a low SP toon it consumes all of the fitting) and is low on capacitor itself and that’s by only the guns, in a real fit you also want a propulsion module and some tank and at that point the coercer just won’t deliver.
How does a Punisher perform? Unsurprisingly, with only half the guns it only inflicts half the damage, but a significant amount of fitting capacity is left on the Punisher unlike the Coercer which got it’s fitting capacity consumed away by its guns. The Punisher also has a lot of capacitor left. Add an armor repair module and both the Coercer and the Punisher will break out of capacitor stability.
Let’s look at the specifics: For Capacitor Stability, Spare Mid slots can be turned into capacitor buffer (cap batteries), and as a side effect get capacitor warfare resistance, or into capacitor repair speed w/o additional buffer (cap recharger), or into current-state capacitor (cap boosters). Spare Low slots can be turned into significant capacitor repair speed at the price of less significant loss of capacitor buffer (cap flux coil), or lows can be used to provide both repair speed and buffer and shields and shield repair and powergrid all at the same time w/o downsides but each only by low amounts (power diagnostic)
A Punisher repairs its 500GJ capacitor in 120 seconds, and has 2 mid and 5 low slots.
A Coercer repairs its 875GJ capacitor in 280 seconds, and has 2 mid and 3 low slots.
As a damage control and the repair module are basically obligatory in any active armor tank fit, and both use low slots, it leaves the Punisher with 3 slots and the coercer with one. One capacitor repair module will not be able to stabilize the Coercer, 3 on the other hand will easily be able to stabilize the Punisher, which was less cap unstable then the Coercer from the very beginning.
Each low slot Capacitor Flux Coil provides 31% effective capacitor repair rate and consumes CPU
Each low slot Power Diagnostic provides 12% effective capacitor repair rate and consumes CPU while providing Power
Each mid slot Cap Recharger provides 20% effective capacitor repair rate and consumes CPU
Each mid slot Small Cap Battery provides 150GJ, which means 30% more capacitor for the Punisher and 17% for the Coercer. It also provides 25% capacitor warfare resistance, while consuming CPU and significant amounts of Power
Each mid slot Cap Booster will provide a given amount of capacitor immediately depending on the ammo loaded, and uses CPU while the consumed ammo needs large amounts of cargohold m^3. As it provides a fixed amount of capacitor rather than an amount relative to the ship’s limits, the cap booster charge provides a higher percentage to the Punisher then to the Coercer but the amount is so insignificant compared to the amount of cargohold consumed that this module disqualifies on any empire space PVE fit
The Coercer is not only less cap stable and has less low slots to mitigate then the Punisher has, the effect a cap battery provides is lower, too. Without tweaking for additional powergrid a Coercer can’t have a repair module, a prop mod, full focused beams tops and a cap battery anyways, while the Punisher can, because it didn’t have all it’s Powergrid get soaked by the guns.
As all other empire faction mainline combat frigates, a Punisher gets a tank bonus. The hull’s armor resistance bonus has an armor repair module run more effectively by improving the EHP to HP ratio of the Punisher, and thereby the amount of EHP repaired in each cycle of the Repair module. So the Punisher is not just better then the Coercer at keeping the module running, the very same module actually makes the Punisher more capable of face-tanking incoming fire then it makes a Coercer.
Of cause, it won’t be face-tanking. Both ships manouver to reduce the enemies ability to inflict damage on it. A Punisher moves at 443m/s while a Coercer moves at 318m/s, without propulsion modules (propulsion modules effect both ships equally, so the ratios stay in place). This makes the Punisher, when moving tangetial to the enemy, 1-(318/443) = 28% more difficult to hit with a turret, and missiles apply 28% less damage. The Punisher is also smaller then the Coercer, with it’s 37m signature it’s 39% smaller and therefore 39% harder to hit with turrets and to apply damage on with missiles than a Coercer which has 62m. Combine speed and size and the Punisher while moving at combat speed will take 1-((318/443)*(37/62)) = 58% less incoming damage. The Coercer had only twice the DPS but it has to tank more then twice the incoming damage and it’s tank module works less effective while the fit is harder to get cap stable… The Punisher’s ability to to move quickly on the combat grid provides a number of obvious advantages on top of just reducing incoming damage application, too.
The coercers guns soak off all the fitting if you use focused beams, do we really need those, and can’t other weapon choices provide for more fitting left? The answer is that of cause it can, and it should acutally take other guns, but the destroyer will have to move closer into the NPCs and in result will have to tank the capacitor warfare on top of just the damage, a job that the frigate will do better, or can do just as well and at the same time have the long range guns.
The reward is the bounty on the NPCs, the loot they drop, and the Loyalty Points, not the mission payout, which is insignificant for any level of mission and security space. LP increases as security rating decreases, and in low and null, ratting in “dangerous” space scales the NPC bounties. There is also a npc corporation standings increase associated with successful mission turn in, which also has a value, though this value is more of strategic nature then something you can sell.
In null, if a fight was competitive, something went really wrong. Competitive PVP doesn’t exist in null.
I think this is legitimately one of those times where we respectfully tell you this might not be the game for you. I’m sorry it didn’t work out for you. If you change your mind, we’re available to help you and give guidance. All of the issues you described can be solved with a different attitude and additional planning and knowledge of the game. So, if you really want to figure the game out, we’re here to help!
Eternal Montage said it kindly
I will be less kind: Permaband - HTFU - YouTube
you took the wrong ship, you don’t try to adjust your fit, your strategy, you don’t try to find friends to help you
you just come here and complain. you don’t even ask “what did i do wrong?” “how could i improve?”
go back to usual mmos where a npc will ask you to collect 10 wooden pieces or kill 10 wolves and will tell you that you are the savior of the world
EVE was designed, in effect, with the notion that nowhere is “safe” and assuming how things will go can get you killed. It’s generally best to check out any unknown situation with a google search or at least asking in help channel for more info on it before attempting it.
(Unless you prefer to fly wild and free and let the crushings fall where they may. For adventure!)
An easy process is simply Alt-Tab to google, and search “Eve Online mission name level X”.
So for instance google “Eve Online The Blockade Level 2”, and look for an Eve University or Eve-Survival.org article on it. It’ll tell you what’s in the mission, some idea how hard it is, sometimes the best way to complete it.
Another useful tip is, look for systems with more than one agent of the level you want. So if you get a mission that you don’t want to run, and can’t decline it due to 4-hr timer, you just go to one of the other agents and pick a different one. I find 3 agents in a system is generally enough that I can always get a mission of some sort.
Unlike the very tough selection process to become an astronaut (or the ridiculously high cost of buying a ticket into space), playing an online game is accessible to pretty much everyone who owns a computer and internet.
Learning the basic rules of a game should be possible for anyone who wants to learn them.
Still the general statement is stupid.
One can’t tell for the general case when he can only talk about himself.
The underlying assumption of the previous post is that, if other people can do it, then anyone should be able to do it too. That’s completely stupid. The loaded nature of that post makes it stupid, because it makes implicit claims that judge the person instead of being factual.
He’s not the first newbro to die in a destroyer doing L2s, after being told stupidities like “it’s easy to do L2s in a destroyer”.
And yes, that is a “quit moment”. That is bad for the game.
EVE is full of such “quit moments” where a player can lose their ship and everything on it.
If players aren’t interested in how to improve and possibly learn from such an event and instead decide to quit because of it, they would quit the next time even if L2s were made easier. Next time they die in a L3. Or in a wormhole. In a gank. When finding out how bubbles work. When they learn that bombers have no targeting delay.
I agree it’s not good for the game if people quit. But I also think that the game should not be changed to cater to people who would quit in such a situation, because people who quit because of a ship death would quit later on in the game anyway, because this is a very frequent occurrence in EVE.
If anything, having such I-quit moments very early in the game does everyone a favour by making an early selection of players who are willing to put in that little extra effort into a game versus people who are simply looking for a game they can play with their brains off. EVE is helping the second type of player by telling them sooner rather than later that this may not be the game they’re looking for.
You claim people who quit, would have quitted anyway. But all you know, is that people who quit, have quitted. Everything else about judgement about the person is your personal opinion, based on your personal feelings and how it can be arranged to support your dogma.
People quit or not, based on the experience they have had on the game.
Also I’m not talking about changing the missions. I don’t know why you brought that topic here.
I actually think missions are good. OP did not know they were not supposed to done in destroyer, that happens. He left, that also happens.
What I don’t like, is how people try to push their judgements by making them implicit requirement of a loaded question. This is propaganda, mass manipulation using fallacious arguments.
I claim that people who would be willing to quit because they lost their valuable ship due to a lack of understanding would have quitted later in the next situation where they lost their valuable ship due to a lack of understanding, even if you fixed the first situation to be less harsh on them.
EVE is full of situations where people can lose their valuable ship if they aren’t aware of the game mechanics, and even if they are aware, they still regularly lose ships.
I claim that people who are willing to quit over such a situation will quit in EVE anyway. And that won’t change unless you fundamentally change the way EVE works.