Death to all link alts.

that's what I want to change by giving them a aggression timer or something when they activate links so you can prevent station games/gate games with them.

Good to see multiple Low sec and solo/small gang people running this year.

Do you not think that its a problem when in faction warfare areas the most effective way of grinding is to use cloak/stabbed frigs? The incentive isn't there to compete for resources at the moment. These farmers are damaging the income of both faction warfare fighters and mission running in general. Why do you think it would be a bad to see them removed or forced to adapt? (Which hitting them in the wallet may do). You mentioned the rated plex's later, if you've done many you'll be aware that nice fights can stem from competition for them, when people's income is at risk they become a lot more willing to grab some guns, instead of this current system where players just wait while being hassled or pop next door because its more efficient.

Personally I'd be concerned about making those rated plex's easier too, because that suggests they will be completed faster and conflict has less opportunity to occur, which is bad.

I'm also curious how you feel about piracy? A low-sec candidate must have an opinion on this? Happy with the current state/not happy? Things you'd like to see regarding it etc?

Thanks for the response Gorski,

Regarding the stabbed/farmer issue, it is frustrating but that isn't my main concern with it, its the fact its not more benificial to fight than to passively wait for somebody to leave or system hop where they can easily find another source of income. I don't agree that you're hurting new players by removing use of stabs and cloaks, the novice complex's are very new player friendly already for example. I don't like to see players rewarded for blueballing which the current system promotes. I agree you can't make people fight, and am not suggesting trying, I'm suggesting they no longer be able to farm as easily or passively, which is to the benefit of everybody else collecting LP who actually earn it.

Sorry I should have been clearer I wasn't specifically meaning FW missions in my previous post. The normal loyalty stores have similar rewards. If more people are collecting LP and cashing out in either FW or normal LP stores, the additional supply will lower the value of the products. Hence my reasoning behind LP farmers damaging other peoples income. So they not only affect FW dudes, but also highsec mission runners, L5 runners etc. (which take more effort and investment to aquire the lp for)

Regarding piracy. I absolutely agree with you about it being solo account runner and new player unfriendly, I think its where most people consider trying out pvp the first time so seems pretty stupid to punish them for it, maybe it would be nice removing sec loss in low-sec non pod kills or something or outside of empire ganks you can only damage your sec status enough that you can only be kos in 1.0's and 0.9's.

But I digress, what I was actually meaning when I asked was I'm curious how you feel about things like gatecamps, CCP seems to have implemented a strategy whereby its really easy to cyno past or use pretty much immune from being caught ships to avoid camps in anything worth killing, these camps are more prone than ever to getting curbstomped by the proliferation of hotdropping, these 2 factors seem to have greatly reduced the number of pirate outfits about and those that remain have very difficult to engage set-ups ie linked with falcon/logi support. This in turn has reduced content to small gang pvpers who enjoy breaking up camps for example, as its hard enough to find a camp let alone an engagable one these days. I personally think it's a shame that content is being nerfed out of the game and I was wondering how you feel about it?

Regarding medium autocannons, do you think their range and kiting potential should be buffed?

Regarding the devaluation of LP from other factions. I don't think that highsec and FW lp stores share that much and it shouldn't be a problem since the best isk/lp items in highsec will not be able to be available in Faction warfare.

Actually there's extensive overlap between what the two stores offer, and the FW offers for ships have a tremendous edge that renders navy ships unprofitable for highsec LP stores. The primary item not available in FW are BPCs for items, and those are only available to certain corps in highsec anyway.

Only one ASB per ship.
Rebalance pirate ships, buff underpowered hulls and nerf overpowered ship bonus (serpentis).
Rebalance T3 so they are no longer better than T2 in their specialized roles, follow the "Jack of all trades, master of none" logic.

I like what you've said so far, one question for you if you've got time to explain is why do you think boosters are allowed to be off-grid to provide boosts?

I think the incursus should not be able to fit 3 or 4 armor reppers.
What's up with that???




Serious bit -
What is your opinion about silent plex auctions being used to guarantee only rich players have a chance at entering the CCP run tournaments?


Do think a system that gives all alliances/players an equal chance is fairer?

The biggest problem I have with lowsec is that it's very hard to live there at the moment. I have countless losses where my ships are half/sub optimal fit because I couldn't find the stuff I wanted on the market. This is a even bigger problem for newer guys starting out doing lowsec pvp and piracy. They don't have the luxury that I got where I can afford multiple black frog trips from jita or buying tags to fix my sec status over and over again. I think that sec status is a bit to punishing for people actually fighting in lowsec.

Maybe have missions that only unlock when you are -5 or below or cheaper repairs in stations or something. Just a thought.

How much is this a CSM issue and how much is it a player issue? Your fellow candidate, Sugar Kyle, had the same problem, so... she went out and started a market. Despite her having no experience, and despite Bosena being lowsec (albeit, one jump from high sec), despite it being in relatively depopulated Molden Heath low sec, she succeeded. Now other traders sell their wares in Bosena as well, and people outside her corp buy them. It's not what anyone would call a major hub, but it supplies the necessaries.

Given that, perhaps the question is, to what extent does the current cultural makeup of low sec contribute to the pain of getting stuff in the market? Is the problem systemic, or a mere lack of people who find market-running and logistics to be interesting gameplay?

Gorski. What do you think about the current state of the warp speed changes where EVE has basically turned into cruisers/hacs online for longer nullsec roams, especially now ishtars (and cerbs) can outdamage, outapply, and outtank most t3 bcs?

What are your thoughts on Timer Rollbacks or Dual Timers for FW Plexes?

Do you support making FW Missions for the various faction equal in difficulty? (needing a similar kind of ship, where as now Gal Mil has to use Tier3s/Stratios/HACs where other factions use stealth bombers).

Are you for removing FW Missions?

Do you see problems with power projection and would you like to see it reduced?

Are you interested in making it so .4 systems aren't baby lowsec (moon mining, POS reactions, etc.)?

Do you have any thoughts on how FW Lowsec corps should make isk on a corporate level since there is no mechanic to tax LP, or do you think a mechanic should be created?

do you think smartbombs are currently underpowered?

Gorski. What do you think about the current state of the warp speed changes where EVE has basically turned into cruisers/hacs online for longer nullsec roams, especially now ishtars (and cerbs) can outdamage, outapply, and outtank most t3 bcs?

Do you see problems with power projection and would you like to see it curtailed in some fashion?

Could you clarify your position on links and command ships on station?

Should activating warfare links give you aggression? Yes or no?

Yes very much yes. They provide far to big of a boost at no risk on stations.

This one change would be huge for low sec / Faction Warfare.

One of my corpmates proposed increasing the activation range for acceleration gates to 2500m from the current 2000m. It was apparently reduced in an Inferno 1.1 patch to help with a bug for cloaked ships docking / jumping.

Increasing the activation range would let cloaked boats (recons, stealth bombers, cov ops, and the SoE ships) activate the gates while remaining cloaked. This would allow us to better hunt FW farmers, as well as those running DED sites and missions.

What are your thoughts on the feasibility / advisability of such a change?

I hope this is a bad joke^^
Gorski Car telling us his stories about his big fw experience and solo pvp. Rofl.
I remember you were one of the biggest link abusers in game. So no you and 2 links vs another guy is not solo.
And yes we all remember "I didn-¦t want that titan anyway".
Whole amarr militia wants to see you dead. And from what I know a lot of calmil too^^
Biggest joke ever.

Gorski Car telling us his stories about his big fw experience and solo pvp. Rofl.
I remember you were one of the biggest link abusers in game. So no you and 2 links vs another guy is not solo.
And yes we all remember "I didn-¦t want that titan anyway".
Whole amarr militia wants to see you dead. And from what I know a lot of calmil too^^

Gorski is not a bad joke - he has no clue about what he is writing here.

Gorski is a ganker - not a solo pvp guy - there is a differnce between the two.

And he admits it.

If you want ppl to fight - especially new players - then you have to make links on grid. Better remove them as a whole, because links violate everything eve anounces as game mechanic - risk and gain.

Flagging links is useless - if links could be hit noone would use them.

I understand that links generate income for ccp - so they have to decide - more gorski style ganking or new players fighting and having fun in low sec. In the long run new players will make more income for ccp that more gorskis.

Then you understand that I am very experienced with the subject and that my thoughts on balancing links are good. I almost consider it a achievement that two militias want me dead because I farmed them so much. But hey what can you do not everyone can like everyone. And trust me I hate hauling a stupid slow link alt along just to "get even" with a established militia who has a pos in every system with a link alt in it + a open fleet.

What good players do in eve is they figure out what is overpowered or good and abuse the **** out of it until CCP changes it. Just look at Ishtars and Geretics now for example. That's what I consider good at eve, being able to identify what is good and fast then abuse it. There is nothing wrong with using stuff that is in the game to your advantage no matter how dishonorable or how hard it is violating some made up rules about space honor. There is no such thing, only dead ships from people trying to force their view on the sandbox upon others.

May my leviathan rip in peace don't bring up dead relatives.

ps it's not a joke.

all my questions are FW based.

What are you going to do to bring back battlecruiser's to lowsec? would you propose to bring back the battlecruiser size plexs for faction warfare? (restricting t1 and faction bc's only so that the new faction battlecruiser can have a place to shine, instead of shining in your hanger)

What about the FW cyno jammer that was supposed to be implemented for FW but never was? many of us still want to fight in battleships, fight for bunkers without getting mega mode hot dropped by 60 PL dreads.

how do you feel that FW has become about the t2 ships now instead of the faction ships. ages ago faction warfare's highest ship tier allowed in a certain plex size was the navy faction. and now t2 ships are allowed in every plex and clear advantage can be seen.

What are you going to about cross militia plexing?

will have more for you gorski.

Re Faction battlecruisers

I really agree that they are in a bad spot at the moment and that's not just in Faction warfare space. I think their main problem is that they are not cost effective at all. A hurricane Fleet issue is around 140m isk and for 20m more you can get a ishtar and enjoy a ship with overall better stats for everything. I don't see how FW would hurt from a battlecruiser and down plex and I think that could be fun.

Re hotdrops

I think you are overestimating PL:s ability to react. We can not form a 60 pl dread fleet in 2 minutes for a fight on a bunker unless we were tipped off from the start and then you got bigger problems to worry about. You already got the mobile cyno jammers. Maybe you could use those.

On t2 ships

The novice plexes are still faction frig and down. I actually think the plex sizes are kinda balanced at the moment. A small plex that allows t2 ships also allows destroyers and a well piloted destroyer can take down a t2 ship without much of a problem. I also think there are ways to counterfit your faction frigs (and t1 frigs) to counter t2 frigs. I don't really agree with the t2 ship advantage. They are slow use that against them.

The only thing I might consider a bit problematic is that you allow t2 cruisers in medium plexes. All in all FW would benefit from a larger sized plex that allows them + bcs.

Bad spelling punctuation below forgive me

re hot drops
Many of us have tried on several occasions to do a standard battleship roam and it never fails to have somebody completely panic and call in whatever entity. PL isnt the only ones that have batphones. The mobile cyno jammer is way to easy to be destroyed by another battleship fleet. and even still it doesnt stop most cap fleets from jumping in only a few km from your fleet. So its only a temporary solution. nothing that was the FW cyno jammer. which was an hour long system wide.

re t2 ships
the novice plexs are excellent. they let the faction frigate do their jobs.
The small plexs are indeed fun too, and many people wanted t2 destroyers to enter them and ccp granted the request for a small plex with t2 ships. i love the small plexs as well.

however the medium plexs which was originally t1 cruisers and faction cruisers only is now completely dominiated with t2 cruisers, the t1 cruiser re-balance that ccp worked so hard on, and the faction cruiser re-balance almost never get to see uses.
t2 cruisers have a complete advantage over t1, as they should they are properly balanced now! Dont have to completely destroy the current medium plex, perhaps add another plex spawn, specifically for faction and t1 cruisers.

As it sits right now, t2 cruisers dominate the mediums and their tanks are nearly unbreakable except with gangs of equal size or greater(in most cases) the fighting in mediums doesnt happen very often. adding or changing the medium the plex for t1 and faction cruiser, because of the meer price tag alone i can guarantee more pvp will be had because alot more people are willing to suicide cheap ships rather than expensive ones.

Re big plex

as for the proposed battlecruiser plex id love to have it back! and make it t1 and faction bc down. the last time the major plex existed ccp let tech 3 cruisers in and completely forgot to let command ships in majors. So what would be your choice gorski? would you add a major plex with t1 and faction bc for gf's? add a major that allows big isk sinked ships in like command ships and tech 3's? or add both because more pvp chances!

what about considering a battleship plex? (for obvious reasons no capitals can enter. and t2 cruiser logi isnt that effective so it would mostly be about having a good brawl)

Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even.

You're assuming larger gangs don't have OGB?

Yes very much yes. They provide far to big of a boost at no risk on stations.

So does this mean that pilots in high sec who use gang links in incursion fleets should go suspect as well?

While I do have plenty of respect for Gorski, I must disagree with regards to OGBs.

If any ship or module gives your fleet a distinct, measurable and mechanical benefit, you should have to risk it on the field. Having to play the "do they have links?" song and dance before you think about taking a fight is, imo, one of the nails in the coffin of small gang pvp in this game.

ECM wouldn't be ok off grid. Remote sebos wouldn't be ok off grid. Logi would not be ok off grid.

Why are (often absurdly good) buffs ok off grid?

Then you make sure Battlecruisers and command ships will be able to fit links without gimping their pvp mode. Adding a new t2 destroyer that is able to provide link bonuses would also be cool if CCP decides that links need to be ongrid only.

if we have to put links on grid I want more ships that should be able to put links on them and not having to compromise their entire fit. This could even make battlecruisers used again in fleets. I also do not like the mindlink implant at all.

While I do have plenty of respect for Gorski, I must disagree with regards to OGBs.

If any ship or module gives your fleet a distinct, measurable and mechanical benefit, you should have to risk it on the field. Having to play the "do they have links?" song and dance before you think about taking a fight is, imo, one of the nails in the coffin of small gang pvp in this game.

ECM wouldn't be ok off grid. Remote sebos wouldn't be ok off grid. Logi would not be ok off grid.

Why are (often absurdly good) buffs ok off grid?

My opinion was to either keep then off grid or change them drastically if they are to be on grid.

Off grid boosting alts (OGBs): I currently believe that links are in a fine place power and projection wise. I know many people don't share my view of this but let me help you understand. Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even. There are multiple ships that hard counter small gangs and I think it is only fine that a link alt helps counter larger gangs.

It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even.

Off grid boosting alts (OGBs): I currently believe that links are in a fine place power and projection wise. I know many people don't share my view of this but let me help you understand. Links currently gives your gang a larger engagement profile and helps you take fights that you would not have taken otherwise. It helps small gangs fight bigger gangs and trade somewhat even. There are multiple ships that hard counter small gangs and I think it is only fine that a link alt helps counter larger gangs.
There is of course nothing that stop bigger gangs from using them and that's fine because smaller gangs are mostly designed to better benefit from the links.

I understand the need for bigger plexes and a system like this would be better then what we have now. I guess there are some people that will argue that restricting shipsizes is restricting the sandbox but I don't really agree. I think that the fw plexes has done way more good for this game and the state of lowsec fw pvp.

Beginner plex: t1 frigs, faction frigs. 10k lp
Small plex: t2 frigs, t2 destroyers. 15k lp
Medium plex: t1 cruisers. 20k lp
Large plex: t2 cruisers, battlecruisers. 25k lp
Huge plex: All sub caps 30k lp
Ungated plexes. 30k lp

And make the rat hard inside them.

one of the problems i find with a low sec market is the people there dont give you the chance for someone to set up a market and would rather kill the guy rather than allowing him to bring in ammo and other goods that would benefit that low sec group.
Theres a big enough problem in high sec trying to be an industrialist with gankers, and cant be out in null because of CTAs.

In which direction do you think CCP should take the recons in the next expansion? Just straight up buff the speed and cap on most of them or changing around bonuses to make something new?

I will probably put gorski on my ballot, ship balancing is important to me and Gorski has the knowledge to give insightful input to CCP about the pro's and con's that changes would have on solo and small gang.

Having said that.

Gorski, how do you feel about the way balancing is now handled in a semi-public fashion, where fozzie or rise will post a topic and we get 30 pages of people reacting to the listed changes, with some good posts and a whole lot of posts of people who with all due respect add nothing to the discussion because they either don't understand the changes, or are overly focused on their own play style.
And how do you think you will fit into this feedback loop if you where on the CSM?

wait so what's wrong with causing suspect timer to trigger for ogb upon activating modules?

I understand this is a view many people have but there is nothing stopping you from probing them down and killing them. They are pretty easy to probe down now days with the probing modules. There is multiple problems with the current linking system that many people don't like. They kind of provide too much stuff for little risk and that's what I want to change by giving them a aggression timer or something when they activate links so you can prevent station games/gate games with them. The benefits with links is that they allow smaller linked gangs to take on bigger unlinked gangs instead of just ignoring the bigger gang. CCP also receives more money from subscriptions.

Just changing links to be ongrid is not a good solution. People would fit up stuff like 100mn mwd/ab claymores or just keep the links way out or only fight on gates/station where they can dock links if primaried. This would help with faction warfare plexes though.

Another fix that needs more work is to remove mindlinks from the game (unlikely as they just introduced faction mindlinks). Then you make sure battlecruisers and command ships will be able to fit links without gimping their pvp mode. Adding a new t2 destroyer that is able to provide link bonuses would also be cool if CCP decides that links need to be ongrid only.

You have my vote sir.

However I. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the idea of links being moved too on grid only? What are your general thoughts regarding this proposal.

Also I am curious how you actually plan on making a very small part of the eve community have a voice. As it stands now, CCP will listen most closely to their largest playerbase, which is null and high sec. Do you have any strategies or statistics that you could use / show CCP that would make them more receptive to low sec playerbase concerns?

Lastly, do you have any ideas about how to increase the importance of small gang / solo to the average player base? As me and you both know- small roaming gangs are usually the genesis to larger fleet and eventual Cap battles. So it makes me sad that it is always pushed too the side lines.

Are you going to fan fest hooker? If so- I will see you there.

You got my vote gorski. I don't agree with everything, but as a low sec pvp'r and FW member, I don't feel represented by the current CSM. Nor have I, since I started eve. I love the idea of links causing aggression timers (like logi does). A great fix. Instead of a t2 destroyer, what would you think about a T3 destroyer, with only 2 or 3 subsystems. I agree that putting links on grid will only help blobs.

I have 1 question for you, do you feel logistics is fine in its current state?

I personally feel it's too powerful at almost every level, whether it's t1, t2, or triage. In my opinion it is not balanced when a single ship can counter the damage of 3 or 4 equivalent class ships. In FW space it is very common to see fleets with nearly 40% or more of their fleet in logi, which is very telling of it's balance. Perhaps make TD's work on rep mods, or lower the targetting range and sensor strength of logi ships to allow damps and ecm to be more effective. Maybe slow down the cycle times on the modules. Right now logi just ruins a lot of fights, because it makes so many fleets untouchable.

We run into a gang of 20 guys we have 10, and we can't even kite or try to pick anything off even when they get caught 40km off their fleet because of the rep range of the logi, the rep amounts, they fit eccm so you can't reliable jam enough of them, or we need to have multiple damps just to stop 1 logi ships range, and the fact that 7 of those 20 guys are logi.

What do you think Gorski?

If you nerfed logistic ships, they'd become almost worthless in nullsec pvp. Bringing logistics to your lowsec gang, simply results in your own loss of good fights. It's not the game that should be changed in this, it's probably the players' attitude towards 'What winning is'.

Gorski: What do you think about projected effects get on killmails?
Ship A kills Ship B. Ship C is remote repairing/projecting links/Rsebo/whatever on Ship A. Should Ship C be displayed on Ship A's killmail?
Why / Why not?

On t3 destroyers instead of t2:

I am not a big fan of t3 ships and I feel a do-it-all type of ship is not really needed in the destroyer class. I think a specialized t2 destroyer would be a better choice for a ongrid link ship. t3s ships currently have multiple problems with them and they pretty much outshine t2 ships in most areas.

On Logi proliferation:

I agree that the easy to access t1 logi cruisers might be a bit of a problem at the moment and it's not uncommon to see as you say 50-50 logi/dps gangs. What I always wondered is who actually fights those gangs and do they really get good fights. I obviously is not a big fan of logistics at the moment as it is a hard thing to deal with solo. But I think it is a good thing that this game has force multipliers and sometimes you have to accept that you shouldn't be able to kill a 50 man maller, augoror fleet with 10 caracals even though you can perfectly control the range of the engagement.

Something I think would be really cool with logistics and logi modules is giving them ammo like the ancillary shield booster or rapid launchers. Then you could have the reps be really strong and deliver exciting front loaded reps and then having a reload time where you can't rep at all. Then you can make a choice with your logis if you want to rep in shifts providing a constant rep rate or if it is needed have them all burst rep. Just a thought.



Logistics already currently are kind of worthless in the huge fights. Both sides can field enough alpha that ships have no real chance of catching reps. A exception to this is of course slowcats. As for changing the eve playerbase attitude. That's a hard problem since most people don't actually want a good fight. They just want easy killmails.

I think that anything helping such as logistics, links and remote modules should be on the killmail. It would let all those logistics finally show that they actually did something apart from just seeing the damage taken number of the ship be really high. If you assist with dps such as drones you show up on the killmail and anything else helping should as well. I think killmails should tell a bigger picture/more complete picture of what really happend when the ship died.

Hello Gorski Car,

I am one of the co-hosts of the Cap Stable Podcast. www.capstable.net

We would like to invite you to be on the show to be part of our CSM9 coverage.

Prospective CSM candidate who are interested in setting up a 30 minute interview, please use any of the methods detailed below to contact us. Interviews will be posted unedited, save clearing up any technical difficulties and they will be granted on a first confirmed, first served basis. Each CSM candidate will be paired with one of our hosts for an one-on-one interview. We will make ourselves available as possible, but we would prefer to record evenings US time, about 2:00-5:00 EVE time most days.

Email: podcast [at] capstable.net

Please remember to provide us with a contact e-mail and your Skype ID.

We hope to hear from you soon and thank you for participating in the Council of Stellar Management elections.

Sincerely,


Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer, The Cap Stable Podcast

also gorski, For FW missions we all know that they stay up for 12 hours after you pop them and there is no incentive to stopping your enemy from running missions except by sitting in the mission for 12 hours. That is ridiculous.

Can we suggest that their not only be 1 objective for a mission but lets say, that the enemy can also "deny" the mission by completing different enemy objective? There would be no reward for the enemy to completely the mission the only thing i can think of that wouldnt be farming abusive is that the mission collector doesn't get the rewards for the mission and is not penalized.

this would significantly cut down farming.

For a legitimate example.(going to use amarr/minmatar front for this) Take Cost of hubris. An amarr pilot warps in and his main objective is to kill the minmatar fleet commander. (most missions take 1-3 minutes to complete anyways) say there is also an amarr Fleet commander, and killing the amarr fleet commander would be a minmatars objective. If the minmatar completed their objective the amarr pilot wouldnt get LP and wouldnt be penalized via standing.

Much better than camping the mission for 12 hours on end.

thoughts on this?

On FW missions:

I support fw missions and think it is great that they are in the game. You can't force everyone to join fw simply for pvp and people need to have a way to fund all their ships. I think it is bad that the gal fw missions have so much ewar that they are undoable in a bomber or not effectively run. All fw missions should be able to be run by a bomber but in some cases its more effective to run them in a ishtar for example.

People might think that a bomber is way to hard to catch and generate way to much isk/risk in lowsec but I disagree. I have personally run warp speed rigged crows in FW space and warped to beacons as soon as they pop on the overview. It is possible to catch a surprising amount of bombers this way.

Logi makes it very hard to outplay an opponent. The only way to beat a bunch of logi (whether it's t1 or t2) is basically to out-blob them with a larger logi based armor gang. I don't like sitting at 0 pressing f1 until one group out blobs the other.

It would open up a lot more interesting game play if logi had more limitations on it. I like the ammo idea for rep modules, this is the kind of limitation needed. Or reducing the rep range but adding modules that increase it, so at least the logi pilots have to make some decisions in fitting.

You can outplay logi by switching targets and hoping to nuke them before reps land. It is less of a piloting outplay than a shotcalling outplay, but it is possible. Obviously this is easier against armor comps than shield, but you can't say that there is no potential to outplay a gang's logi.

Reducing rep range across the board sounds good to me. If they're part of the fleet they should be on top of the fleet, not 75km off ready to get safe at a moments notice.


xxBasedGorskixx has my full support.

also gorski, For FW missions we all know that they stay up for 12 hours after you pop them and there is no incentive to stopping your enemy from running missions except by sitting in the mission for 12 hours. That is ridiculous.

Can we suggest that their not only be 1 objective for a mission but lets say, that the enemy can also "deny" the mission by completing different enemy objective? There would be no reward for the enemy to completely the mission the only thing i can think of that wouldnt be farming abusive is that the mission collector doesn't get the rewards for the mission and is not penalized.

this would significantly cut down farming.

For a legitimate example.(going to use amarr/minmatar front for this) Take Cost of hubris. An amarr pilot warps in and his main objective is to kill the minmatar fleet commander. (most missions take 1-3 minutes to complete anyways) say there is also an amarr Fleet commander, and killing the amarr fleet commander would be a minmatars objective. If the minmatar completed their objective the amarr pilot wouldnt get LP and wouldnt be penalized via standing.

Much better than camping the mission for 12 hours on end.

thoughts on this?

I would personally be happy if FW missions were designed a bit like the pirate epic arc missions where the intended ships for doing them is assault frigs/interceptors. I think this better reflects the ships that are used the most in FW space at the moment and they can actually somewhat fight back. Just some thoughts on FW missions. I do not really think they are in that bad of a spot at the moment. There are things that needs more looking into.

cant out play logi if your going into them and they have 10-20 people in fleet and everybody is already prelocked your screwed easier against armor than shield? are you cnile? it is easier to outplay shields than armor. armor is WAYY easier to anticipate current dps applications.

but yeah augorors that are 66% as effective as a guardian at 1/12th of the price is ********

* wrong if there is 3 logi people in fleet of 20 everybody can be prelocked.
*end of cycle reps dont mean anything since they all have to chew through shields plenty of warning
*
*let me no when you break 300 kills then you can tell me about dimishing returns
*welcome to the internet

How do you stop the chaffing from your goggles?

If elected, will Mandozer become your Secretary of Public Relations?

Do you think missiles are in a good place right now? Do you advocate changing missile mechanics?

HAMs/HMLs?

Do you believe sig radius should completely shut down missile systems with no input from the missile user?

what is your opinion on flipping moon and planet materials between lowsec and nullsec?

I think there is a better solution to warfare link timers than what's been discussed so far. The idea that booster characters should be shot and unable to dock for the duration of the boost is rather lopsided, as it completely eliminates the viability of links in the relatively target-starved systems of high-security space. Incursion groups rely heavily on the existence and availability of warfare links at no detriment to other players. Adding a weapons timer and a suspect timer to warfare links would also push the Orca completely out of an intended role.

The flag-everything solution only works for low-sec. Even though I like low-sec, I don't want to see solutions implemented that only help us. Your thoughts?

Gorski,

As someone who likes to solo PVP and who wants to get better at it (lol,) I'm very happy to see a candidate who represents this playstyle.

That said, my main issue this year is this: Do you believe the TOS and EULA extend outside of the game and cover things said and done in a private environment?

Thanks for you answer, and Bring Solo Back!

Hello.

Currently the Serpentis are the only pirate faction in the game that don't have a rated 6/10 and 9/10 DED complex available to be run. These sites have been on the "coming soon" list for quite a few years, but no further news or information has been released. Would you be willing to request that CCP introduce these sites to the game so that areas like syndicate that rely on running sites as the main form of income can continue to grow and prosper?

I believe unbonused ewar might be a bit too strong as tracking disruptors have become a really strong module after the multiple unneeded missile nerfs. One of the problems eve currently have is that there are no real good force multipliers that come with any risk at all. sitting 100km away from the battle in a 10mn keres damping stuff isn't very dangerous. Same with having a link damnation on station. Huge force multipliers with no risk at all.

do u think solo is dead!?!?!??!?!

do u think solo is dead!?!?!??!?!

Sorry for any repeated questions, tried my best to read all your post and the replies.

How do you feel the Clone Soldiers have helped LS income? Do you think they should have an increased spawn or fine as is?

You suggest more plexes, how do you want these new ones to spawn. As in, what type of spawn rate are you looking at? Afaik and have been told, Large plexes have lower spawn rates (and are plexed really quickly), do you want higher spawn rates for larger plexes?

You mention buffing LS missions, what about the other types of income? Marketing (unless you are scouted in or have webbing alts) are favored for the people with JFs, mining is... well mining, ratting is mainly profitable ny hunting clone soldiers or faction spawns, and Incursions seem hard to do in any kind of safety (i have never done, just hunted people doing them). Anomaly ratting (what im doing for isk atm up in nulli space) doesn't seem as profitable (read at all profitable) in LS.

Do we know when voting starts for CSM?

I largely appreciate your perspective and views, and you've already earned a high position on my ballot.

However, one of your statements puzzled me:



If the tracking disruptors are strong as a result of "unneeded missile nerfs," wouldn't the best response be to fix missiles rather than nerfing tracking disruptors? To reduce ewar because of problems with a weapon system seems a bit like treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. Would you be open to advocating for fixes/improvements to missiles as a whole?

I agree that I was a bit bittervet when I wrote that..