EVE Search - Sticky:[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 8	Posted - 2014.05.17 18:53:00 - [1] - Quote Once again another good Minmmatar ships take the nerf bat ,the worse is we receive nothing to compensate .CCP keep the good work i have the feeling u need to lose more customers .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 05:52:00 - [2] - Quote With relevant skills to 5 ,T2 rigs +1 nano t2 + max cargo with available low slots . PROWLER:---10214m3 align time 4.84 VIATOR:--------10534m3 align time 4.78 PRORATOR:--10819m3 align time 4.95 CRANE:----------9868m3 align time 5.07 Tell me if i messed up !!!
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 19:32:00 - [3] - Quote Ok time for final thought on these changes . -First scanning immunity should'nt be removed ,gankers should still take the gamble to blow an empty BR . -Bubble immunity should'nt be intoduced on these hulls are they are already quite slippery. -Transport bonus are fine and stong warpspeed is especially good ,for any pilot really behind is computer and ccp should be keeping this policy. On the hulls themselves every ships can fit for 10 K m3 and an align time of 5 s with a Nano and T2 cargo rigs except the Crane with less than 10 k m3 and 6 s align time. On the fits ,u could apply on them there is two superiors BR Viator and Prorator who can fit Cover Cyno+ Cov ops + 10 mn experimental Mwd and keep their 10 k m3 cargo and align time . Prowler miss half a point of grid to do so (162.5/163) and need a 1 % grid implant to do so bye bye Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 and variant .Plz CCP and Fozzie fix this . Crane is inferior in everyway in comparaison to the three others and should be sent back at near light speed in his engineer face.
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 19:48:00 - [4] - Quote They are both fine with it core probe launcher only consume 1 PG,but crane has still the crappiest align time and cargo
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 19:50:00 - [5] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Yongtau Naskingar wrote: baltec1 wrote: I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita.. Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't. Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive **. You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well. Yongtau Naskingar wrote:** That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus. Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned. If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be. Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets. We have understood that Goonswarm are bored to gank empty BR ,but no thanks keep the immunity on BR as there is no valid reason to remove it .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 20:56:00 - [6] - Quote Baltec 1 you are so simple that this is amusing ,you are trying to hide what u want behind logic . - You just want to remove the unscannability to let BR come back on autopilot once empty in the purpose to save time for multi adds vet .You hope than once scanned ,they could made it throught . Sorry but there is two rules i've learn the first time i logged in EVE the first one is "fly what u can afford to loose" the second is "never fly a ship on autopilot". SO here is your answer,BR need unscannability because it forces their owners to actively fly them to avoid destruction , this isn't a bonus but a malus ...
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.19 23:10:00 - [7] - Quote "James Amril-Kesh" wrote: We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions This is the case with unscannability ,the player who choose to actively pilot his ships is safer than the one who choose autopilot. Quote: Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets. The risk of being ganked should'nt be lower for a lazy pilot ,no matter the value of cargo .CCP should keep promoting active piloting over automation even when this is a game feature and unscannability do that perfectly .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 00:24:00 - [8] - Quote Finally showing your true face ,short on arguments going for insults ...Eve is a sandbox meaning all kind of players are mixing together deal with it. Concerning the alleged safety net for bad pilots your talking about ,you are the one asking for it .Your are the one who wants autopiloting safer than active piloting .So who is the bad pilot ?And if you want so badly to look inside a BR catch it ,destroy it then you will know what is was carrying.
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 01:17:00 - [9] - Quote You are contradicting yourself here,let me quote you . "baltec1" wrote: At the same time I also dont want an empty ship being put at greater risk simply because some people dont want people looking at their cargo on a ship that when flown right is unlockable anyway. Don't you see the contradiction in what you are saying,if flown properly you are "unlockable" so empty or not your ship isn't put a greater risk as obviously you will not be on autopilot no matter what in low or null sec .For the simple reasons than scannable or not if you are autopiloting in these systems you will be ganked for the lolz. But in the case of autopiloting in high sec ,unscannability force gankers to take a gamble (risk vs reward policy) . So unscannability isn't a safety net for anyone . - For gankers it force them to take a gamble. "Should i loose a few catalyst to crack open this BR on autopilot even if it could be empty ?" -For lazy pilot (autopilote) who wants to bring back a distant BR. "Does a pirate will shoot my ship to look inside ,as they are greedy for juicy trinkets as a bear with honey ?" -For proprer and dedicated pilote . " i don't care anyway , i fly my ship as a boss " This is the kind of questions a player should be happy to respond ,plus they are in phase with the Risk vs Reward policy. So yes i think Unscannability is a good characteristic ,it brings interesting game choices and reward active piloting over lazyness .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 01:48:00 - [10] - Quote Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Judging by what just happened to all the Viators on the market in Metropolis in the last hour or so, it seems the speculation has begun. Actually both Viator and Prorator will be pretty good,if they stay like this. They both have nasty hole in the shield Viator is a bit better on this part ,but anyway for a BR your cloack is your tank . Honnestly between those two its a close choice. I do prefer Prorator as it have much low and can fit 2 Cargohold expander,a nano and a warp core stabilizer who could be a lifesaver if you are a bit late on cloacking against a warp disruptor . Please Fozzie give just one more powergrid to Prowler :)
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 01:59:00 - [11] - Quote "baltec1 " wrote: There are no clues to what is inside the hold of any ship based on their fittings. Randomly ganking blocade runners and hoping you get lucky will always end in the ganker losing all their isk. A BR cost 100 M + 40 M with T2 rigs .A catalyst fitted cost 2 M you ll probably need two maybe three of these to blow it up . Thats is a serious lose streak before getting unprofitable .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 02:03:00 - [12] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: baltec1 wrote: There are no clues to what is inside the hold of any ship based on their fittings. Randomly ganking blocade runners and hoping you get lucky will always end in the ganker losing all their isk. That depends your your profit from the really juicy ones, really. Scanning the fit will at least give you some idea which are the easiest nuts to crack. they all are easy nuts to crack none will have more than 15 k ehp meaning 2 catalyst in 0.6.
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 03:09:00 - [13] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Myrthiis wrote: "baltec1 " wrote: There are no clues to what is inside the hold of any ship based on their fittings. Randomly ganking blocade runners and hoping you get lucky will always end in the ganker losing all their isk. A BR cost 100 M + 40 M with T2 rigs .A catalyst fitted cost 2 M you ll probably need two maybe three of these to blow it up . Thats is a serious lose streak before getting unprofitable . Please tell us where you get your 2 mil T2 cats from. Also the cost of a blockade runner and its rigs means nothing. Honnestly i'm dissapointed ,you know very well than the cost of t1 cats is 2 M.And you perfectly know than 2 t1 cats would be enought to blow a Blockade runner in a 0.7 system . So please be honnest there is absolutly not a chance that you would'nt be profitable ganking BR even blind and tied. The cargo value is comprised between 100 M and 2 B thats a ratio of 10 to 100 lost Cats even t2 before being unprofitable So there is no relation between scannability and profitability ....
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 03:30:00 - [14] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I don't get why everyone is suddenly surprised at the align time on the Prowler. It's not like this is some new thing they just introduced, they didn't touch the align times. The Prowler has an absolutely tiny sig though, which is a bigger bonus than 8 seconds worth of align time >.> They did change the align time by increasing the mass but its barely noticeable as Prowler Viator and Prorator will have a 5s align time with a nano . About the sig radius it not relevant as you should be cloacked before locking,and the difference in sig radius between the four hulls isn't that big anyway at least not in a noticeable way when targeting one of them.
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 17:46:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey guys, we've made some tweaks to the mobility on the Prowler, improving base speed and agility and adding a little bit more mass. This gives the Prowler a noticeable speed increase vs the other BRs and improves its align time slightly. Hey Fozzie what about the PG on the Crane and the Prowler can't fit a 10 experimental Mwd + Cov ops+Cov cyno without offlining them can't we have 10 more Pg for the crane and 5 for the Prowler to avoid this gymnastic each time we want to use them ?
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 14	Posted - 2014.05.20 18:19:00 - [16] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We experimented with this when the change happened. We lost isk. You know nothing about ganking, hence your comment about swapping out ammo on a cat. Not only would you lose isk randomly ganking blockade runners but you would also have to grind up your sec status after a few ganks so we have a large downtime. The entire enterprise is a waste of time and isk. I also doubt you even fly a blockade runner, you simply see this as a negative impact to a group of players you do not like and thus, you want to support it no matter if it is a bad game design. Before these changes it was hard and rare to get a blockade runner with juicy cargo, now it is all but impossible. This is wrong and bad gameplay. We should at least have some chance if the blockade runners pilot is flying badly. Well your quite the guy ,so another personnal attack when no more arguments .Maybe i wasn't clear enought thats why your confused i didn't mean swapping ammo on the cats ,but speaking in a more general ways about those nasty Emp and Explosive Hole in both shield and armor on 3/4 BR making them even more fragile to a Inty or anything roaming around a gate where a BR pilot could mess up is cloack+mwd trick or simply being decloacked, in other security status than H-S .My bad should have been more clear .Is it crystal now ? And please avoid us ,the goon are victim of discrimation !!! On your final comments please ,you are a grown up ....Before these changes BR was catched on a daily basis and it s was hard and rare to catch a juicy one because pilots aren't stupid and not many of them will carry several billions ...Now it ll be the same thing as before .This is good gameplay, that is promoting risk Vs rewards and active piloting over lazyness .Nothing is more easy to catch than an autopilot transport ship
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 15	Posted - 2014.05.20 21:37:00 - [17] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Well objectively speaking you still have a higher chance of being ganked autopiloting an empty BR than you do manually (and correctly) flying one that's carrying billions of ISK worth of cargo, even if it so happens that people can scan your cargo and know for sure that there's nothing inside for the former. So I don't see what the problem is. Blockade runners should not have scan immunity. Note you've said it yourself , that don't come from me .You do recognize than"scannability" isn't worsening the risk of being ganked if the ships is flied actively . So the only thing does "unscannability" is force BR pilots to actively fly them .It does make no sense to remove this characteristic who promote active gameplay,those avoiding abuses. What makes BR unscannable is first "cov ops" as you have recognized yourself then come a second characteristic "unscannable" who force pilot to actively fly the ship to avoid random ganking by pirates .On a side note the profitability of this activity isn't related to"unscannability",but to the median cargo value transported ,as killboard will show it to anyone . But please let us know what is the real purpose behind this lobbying to remove "unscannability",as i proved this charateristic promote active gameplay and doesn't hurt profitability . Spell it loud and clear ,maybe like that we could have a real discussion .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 15	Posted - 2014.05.21 18:01:00 - [18] - Quote Once again when shorts on arguments,you're going for personnal attacks.We already demonstrated that"unscannability" is a good characteristic for BR. -1:Force BR players to actively fly their ships. -2:Do not hurt profitability for gankers . -3:Avoid abuses and automation . -4: Do not avoid risk for BR pilot ,quite easy to uncloack a BR in HS who do not pay attention . There is not any reasons to remove the characteristic from BR. As i suspected your hiding your true intention ,and use propaganda to prove your point ...
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 15	Posted - 2014.05.21 18:12:00 - [19] - Quote Randomly ganking BR is profitable killboard proved it.Median cargo value dropped is around 100 M two cat t2 as you fail with t1 cost 20 M .Have a good day .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 15	Posted - 2014.05.21 23:06:00 - [20] - Quote Well i didn't link anything,but anyone can go on zkillboard>class>blockade runner and see by himself ,there is no gambling in suicide ganking BR the fact that you need t2 cats to do it ,or that the cargo didn't drop as nothing to do with "unscannability". The only reason you want the characteristic to be removed is only to scan juicy multibillion ones to brag to your friends .There is nothing related to game design or game balance in your propaganda.You just want the whole blanket for yourself And to finish i didn't ask protection to CCP,they are the one who come first with this design .And until now you fail to give an argument who make sense to remove it ,except your greed for juicy trinket .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 17	Posted - 2014.05.22 19:43:00 - [21] - Quote It's already as been proved than scan immunity is a way to force BR pilot ,to actively fly the ship. There is no need to remove the characteristic as it's quite easy to suicide gank an AP BR for a minimal loose a meta 3 Catalyst cost 4 M you only need 2 of them to blap it in a 0.6 system . Anyone can go on Zkillboard >class >blockade runner take the first ten kill in high sec system add the the dropped values and remove the value of 20 meta 3 cat ,to see than blapping AP BR is already a quite profitable sport . Asking to remove the charasteristic is only a way to abuse lag,insta locking,forced uncloacking,bumping and human error to increase profit on actively flied BR .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 17	Posted - 2014.05.22 22:40:00 - [22] - Quote Nope it 'll only increase risk for active pilot by allowing abuses or tricks if you prefer and reward unactive gameplay .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 17	Posted - 2014.05.23 01:33:00 - [23] - Quote If disagree with you mean i am incoherent ,i'll gladly take the blame . Unfortunatly except personnal attack and flaming ,you fail to come with arguments .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 17	Posted - 2014.05.23 02:11:00 - [24] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling. You should rewrote your phrase and say .It increases risk for autopiloted empty/low-value cargo hauling, it doesn't change anything for high-value haunling (as you have stated yourself than covops is the thing who does protect them from ganking) and it promote active gameplay over automation for high-value hauling(who is obviously a good thing ).
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 18	Posted - 2014.05.23 05:19:00 - [25] - Quote Sure people like to have their home checked by robbers when they have emptied the safe. And less risk when going in holidays with an alarm,a security guard and attack dogs is not good for the business . Now is i see better where you 're going .It does make sense or not
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 19	Posted - 2014.05.23 18:35:00 - [26] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Jatok Reknar wrote: This is a weak, fast-align ship so using autopilot should add more risk, not less. As it already does for every ship in the game, and they don't have scan immunity. If you want RP value, then CCP can just mention "scan immunity" in the ship description without bothering to add a mechanical bonus, and it would allow you to RP just as much while having the exact same mechanical impact on responsible BR pilots. To me, for RP purposes, it makes no sense that Viziam or Core Complexion would spend resources developing and installing a shielding system that is rendered completely obsolete by their ships' primary feature. I'd much rather buy the one with extra cup holders instead. So if you want to go down that road, I'm against it on principle. Jatok Reknar wrote: Let's not make every ship the same? BR shouldn't be a glorified covert ops frigate with a bigger cargohold. Hate to break it to you, but if scan immunity is the defining feature, then the BR already is a glorified covert ops frigate. With my respect you should read back the thread,"scan immunity" isn't here to protect the ships who is already protected by covops mod . What it does is force player to actually pilot the ship actively to make sure it won't be destroyed ,and the presumed valuable cargo robbed . In a game where bots,Isboxer and Rmt is more and more frequent, i'm not sure that removing a characteristic who actually promote active playing is a good thing.
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 19	Posted - 2014.05.23 19:54:00 - [27] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Rena'Thras wrote: baltec1 wrote: The exact same as any other gank. Which is...what, exactly? Are you aware that loot doesn't always drop? which is not related to "scan immunity"
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 19	Posted - 2014.05.23 22:47:00 - [28] - Quote Makes more sense to me ,to give it to both of them
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 19	Posted - 2014.05.24 00:42:00 - [29] - Quote cargo capacity ,+2 warp core strenght ,and the double amount of tank maybe .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 19	Posted - 2014.05.24 03:25:00 - [30] - Quote Hafwolf wrote: Simple idea make the anti cargo scanning into a module that can be fitter. Great idea would have been even better ,if you would have proposed a rig for 50 calibration points to give "immune to cargo scan" to any ship . Nah they would cry even louder ,or have a stroke .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 23	Posted - 2014.05.26 05:08:00 - [31] - Quote Honnestly a rig would be nice something like this : -Electronics Superiority Rigs > scanner system blocker > 50 rigging point give "immune to player cargo scan " to any ships affected by Transport ship skill . T2 version :75 rigging point give "immune to player and NPC cargo scan" to any ship affected by Transport ship skill . For freighter now that rigs has been removed we could ask for a mod with t1 and t2 version ,mimicking the rig and affected by "racial" freighter skill . It would help mitigate "code" in HS , and this is a solution jester didn't envisaged in his blog .
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 23	Posted - 2014.05.26 06:46:00 - [32] - Quote Dun'Gal wrote: Myrthiis wrote: Honnestly a rig would be nice something like this : -Electronics Superiority Rigs > scanner system blocker > 50 rigging point give "immune to player cargo scan " to any ships affected by Transport ship skill . T2 version :75 rigging point give "immune to player and NPC cargo scan" to any ship affected by Transport ship skill . For freighter now that rigs has been removed we could ask for a mod with t1 and t2 version ,mimicking the rig and affected by "racial" freighter skill . It would help mitigate "code" in HS , and this is a solution jester didn't envisaged in his blog . lol are you seriously asking for scan immunity for freighters? get out WHy not ? Not so long ago ,people who were asking for rigs and/or modules on freighter were laughed at look now what was introduced a few days ago...
Myrthiis Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys 24	Posted - 2014.05.27 03:06:00 - [33] - Quote So Fozzie, are we going to get any word on extending the scan immunity to both BR and DST ? Because it's quite frankly an incredible mechanic to promote active flying over autopilot .

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,19s, ref 20250924/1918
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.