Golem is worst. 107 seconds align time (paladin 97 seconds)
167 sec at Golem.
Kronos has 15 seconds.
Vargul has 14 seconds
Hidden nerf to Amarr and Caldari 
I very much hate the "Replaced many Large Collidable Objects with Non-Interactable Objects to reduce overview clutter.” point. Posted in a separate topic on why:
2 Likes
Replaced many Large Collidable Objects with Non-Interactable Objects to reduce overview clutter.
Has CCP gone completely reporbate now? No one has these objects in the Overview unless you specifically set them to be visible there. At the same time, your shitty NIOs ARE INTERACTABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE IN SPACE AND YOU CAN COLLIDE WITH THEM AND GET STUCK IN THEM. THis is absolute madness.
6 Likes
Cerb also throws them ~45% further. Don’t think you can just look at the DPS in a vacuum (though the Sac does seem pretty nice now).
aehm… Do you realize a Sacrilege using 3 Damage mods won’t have anything worth calling a “tank”?
And a lot lower range for their missiles?
Come on, you can’t just compare theoretical numbers, compare actually realistic fittings that would work in an actual combat situation.
2 Likes
Read again, I talk about that already
I have read it, and being an absolutely pyfa nerd as much as you can become one in EVE, I tell you: this comparison is nonsense.
Feedback on Pochven WHs:
- Scanned three wormholes in a system (intra-pochven, inbound from Null, outbound to High)
- Warped to 100 on each sig
- Landed at 91 (… 0 +100 ?), 136 (~ 35 +100), 172 (~ 75 +100) in same order.
- Pre-patch figure for warpin was 35 km, new 75 km.
Obligatory “did you test this?”
P.S. I hope you know what being able to warp to 175 on a hole means for the pochven highway, because people who play the game definitely do.
- A new selection of basic patterns and colors has been added to SKINR.
- A 50% cost reduction has been applied to pre-existing components.
- A 50% reduction in the cost of SKINR sequencing.
- This offer will run until 5 October 2026.
How about fix the crappy pattern application to hulls before you add more Skinr crap? It’s utterly impossible to get good results if you want to do more than basic run of the mill boring skins.
3 Likes
There was an update today; any patch notes that accompany it?
That was yesterday’s hot fix…
Then there’s nothing yet. Typical for CCP.
1 Like
You’re correct that there’s still range issues in comparison between the Cerb and the Sac. However, It’s entirely possible to make a Sac fit that has the DPS, and reps, on par with the Cerb for running standard C3 anoms. Once I’m home from work, I’d be happy to share an example of this, if you’d like.
Looks like a good balance? Cerb still will have quite a bit more range. But given the fact that currently almost no one uses Sacrileges for C3 anos because the Cerb is simply far superior, it looks like a good change to me?
War Decs at 500Mil?
I am an old dog from since the beginning of the game and I have seen a lot of changes. I agree 100 mil for a war dec given the current economics of the game is super cheap especially if you are running 10 + decs like some groups do. If memory serves me correctly I believe there was once a system where war decs were doubled for each concurrent additional war. Might I suggest you set the first war back to 100 mil, then the second concurrent war dec is 200 mil, then third is 400 mil, then fourth is 800 mil and renewals for any of the wars renew at the new higher price? In this scenarios thats 1.5 billion for 4 decs and potential of 3.2 billion for the renewals.
this will still allow smaller corps to participate in wars, and force the really wealthy corps that are ‘war dec machines’ to pay a much steeper price and prevent maybe these larger groups from picking on the smaller groups. However, 500 mil per dec alienates many small groups and provides a loop hole for evading wars through the use of multiple corps.
4 Likes
The Cerb is still slightly superior, but it is mostly because of the range now, from what I’m seeing anyways. That said, in order to get the reps needed, and maintain DPS, I did have to sacrifice using an ADC because the fit does use 3 BCS. At least the Sac feels like it’s actually a valid option, now, though.
2 Likes
Question. Is it possible to make “Energy Nosferatu” work for all NPCs, not just selectively ?
For example, on level 4 missions, the electronics level of NPCs is no less than in the Abysses and in the WH.
And please pay attention to such abandoned content as Missions. I haven’t played for 7 years and there hasn’t been a single lvl 4 mission, it feels like you abandoned it 
4 Likes
To make them work “normally” (like on player ships) they would essentially need to re-design all old NPCs in existence. Because they would need an actual “capacitor” that you could drain. I doubt they want to do that… touching such old code can be pretty… dangerous in EVE.
A much simpler solution would be to just detach the NOS mechanic vs NPCs from the normal NOS mechanic against player ships. That way FC won’t need to touch any old NPCs and it automatically works for all future NPCs as well.
So, lets say you NOS an NPC ship, you get a fixed amount of cap with diminishing returns each cycle (simulating the NPC going “capdry”) and after a few cycles you get nothing any more. You also can only NOS ships of your own module size or above with full capacity.
Practical example:
You have a Heavy Nosferatu II installed and drain an NPC Battleship: You get
120 cap on the first cycle,
100 on the second,
80 on the third,
60 on the fourth,
40 on the fifth,
20 on the sixth and after that its “capdry” and you can’t NOS it any more. Switch over to another Battleship early to keep your amounts high.
For NOSing M-sized NPCs (cruisers, Battlecruisers) this amount is penalized -25%, for Frigates/Destroyers it’s penalized -50%. They always work at a 100% against ships of the same class as the module (or bigger), and get -25% efficiency per class you NOS “down”.
So, the NOS always has it’s use in fights against NPCs but cannot be used to make your ship easily cap-stable forever by perma NOSing something on the field.
1 Like