PVP proposition: Class damage factor against GANK, role of alpha-strike, Citadel's imcoming_damage_limit

In current state of EVE damage landed is affected by only HP’s resistance factor without taking into account weapon_class/target_class relation - a number of lesser ships with summary DPS equal to that of a bigger ship represents much more danger to a bigger ship than a ship of bigger class gang’s DPS is equal to due to distribution of HP among all attackers, higher number of modules available to attackers, lesser signature resolution in average of attackers than a bigger ship is meant to shoot at, tactical advantage of attackers etc while reducing skill demand for every pilot even more as more ships are participating in ganking, fostering f1-monkeying and turning quantity into quality very fast.

“weapon_class/target_class relation” refers to exponential increase in viability of a structure against lesser threats due to disproportion of offense_means/defense_means: one hard hit damages more than more weaker hits of summary equal force distributed in time/more hits of summary equal force made at the same time and distributed around area of target.

The actual proposition is to reduce incoming damage as caliber of damager lowers: X damage fired from frigate to battleship shouldn’t be as X damage fired from battleship to battleship and so on. This will allow for optional increasing of importance of alpha-strike - the harder it hits the more damage applies or to consideration of caliber of weapon only and for elimination of unreasonable magical incoming_dps_limit of Citadels making damaging and surviving more realistic thus more interesting.

This is already accounted for in Battleships having much larger EHP pools, and being able to fit larger reps.
One could argue that the Battleship reps & base EHP are insufficiently large compared to frigates, and are part of why the Battleship is weak in the Meta, bit it’s already accounted for in a much easier to understand way.

This also would not do anything to Citadels, because people don’t use frigate swarms to take down citadels, and removing the damage cap on Citadels would just result in drive by DD’s happening to citadels, which would not be interesting at all.


As Nevyn wrote, it’s already accounted for in the EHP.

If you rebalance the incoming damage effects, you’d also need to rebalance the EHP, and nothing would really change. This is because it’s not really possible to just adjust one thing alone in a system where balance is based on several factors.

1 Like

You are a horrible person. Go sit in the corner.

Alpha fleets are the epitomy of F1 monkey ships. You don’t even get to press F1 until the monkey trainer says so.


It will decrease unreasonably exaggerated cost efficiency and tactical effectiveness of swarms of lesser ships against bigger targets.

Prove that it is unreasonable.

We’ll wait.

…that exaggerated in direct ratio cost efficiency and tactical effectiveness of swarms of lesser ships against bigger targets is unreasonable ?

Cost efficiency exponentially drops as size grows as it should be, but relational fire efficiency does not exponentially drops as it should be.

monkey, huh?..

Yes, that’s what you said.

Now, prove that it is unreasonable. Your assertion that it is so is merely an opinion, and given that you seem to be particularly ignorant re: most things related to Eve, your opinion has little merit on its own, so I’m asking you to render your position in a more objective format.

Updated previous post. Also if you will re-read the start post carefully you will probably get the point. If not, i will be happy to answer your questions about specific aspects of the proposition.

Oh, I’m sorry, when I said “prove it” I meant, “Provide evidence that conclusively supports your position,” and not, “Paraphrase the opinion you’ve already presented.” See, in the latter case, we’re still merely left with your opinion, and I’ve already remarked on the value of that.

I love this line of yours due to it’s universality - anything can be answered with this line. But i think of myself as of polite person, so i probably won’t use it.

I believe you are able to prove my particular ignorance about [something] that you have found kindness to accuse me of.

Well, no, it’s actually possible to provide facts, figures, and data to support a particular position. In lieu of doing so, you seem to have elected to repeat yourself, presumably hoping that expressing your unsubstantiated position enough times will force it to crystallize into a matter of fact.

You seem to have acknowledged that the drop in cost efficiency with larger ships is as it should be, but then you go completely off the rails by essentially suggesting that be nullified. You don’t seem to be aware that, as a function of efficiency, the two positions are irreconcilable.

Much of your original post is upside down and backwards with respect to desirable changes to mechanics and the meta. As @Old_Pervert noted, the fact that you believe anything increasing the importance of alpha-strike (which already occupies a top spot in the hierarchy of statistical importance) would be desirable, while simultaneously opining on “F1-monkeying”, demonstrates a pretty severe lack of familiarity with the source material.

1 Like

The fact that the OP is openly using an alt to post this poorly disguised whine suggests an embarrassing killmail at the hands of some frigates.


Thank you for your opinion.

You are welcome, fellow capsuleer.

You’re welcome.

Now how about getting to that evidence we were talking about?

Were we?

Yes, we were.

It’s pretty telling that you so strenuously object to actually providing any factual support for your own idea. I’m assuming @Jonah_Gravenstein pretty much nailed the reality of the situation.

I hope you will forgive me if i will not be participating in that meaningless flaming you’ve started. Have a nice day.

So… no facts. Repetition and tone arguments. Yep, Jonah definitely hit this one out of the park. Show us the zkill where the frigate touched you m8.

1 Like