|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17321
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:12:37 -
[1] - Quote
Light Combat Drone wrote:Silver Isu wrote:Ganking is extremely rare and very few freighters die, so called "anti-gankers" have no organization what so ever. Today alone, 30 capital transport ships (JF, freighter, orca) were killed.
Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%.
Why exactly do they need to be made even safer? They were buffed in HP around not being able to fit a suitcase not too long ago and in that very thread it was said a damage control would give them too much structure hp and now here you are dumping 33% more into them.
I also have concerns over the mining barges/exhumers, they are already unprofitable to attack in highsec and this change means they are simply pointless for pirates to attack even if they are fitted in the worst possible way.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17322
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:30:26 -
[2] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Chances of being killed in a freighter by gankers stands as less than 0.1%. Blimey, is it time for a round of "phantasy statistics" again?
Its based off red freights record over 221,333 contracts spanning 2,786,739 gate jumps in highsec. That 0.1% is the number of failed contracts.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:41:05 -
[3] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote: Sorry but I am really struggling to have any sympathy. Go to 0.0/LS/WH space to PvP, or HTFU and bring a few more buddies if you want to gank a HS freighter. I don't mean to pick on your in particular Baltec as I know you are an experienced PvPer yourself, but I do get sick of these hypocritical HS gank whines, they just come across as self entitled rants complaining because they feel they have a god given right to be able to profitably gank a freighter in high sec with a couple of destroyers or battlecruisers.
This change is good for the game as a whole and makes PvP fitting a lot more interesting, that is what really matters.
Pirates go where the cargo is and the cargo is in highsec. Gankers are literally the only risk these people are ever going to face and over the years CCP have nerfed ganking into the ground. We are now at the point where the last profitable piracy sector is about to be more or less wiped out. These changes mean that the bulk of the currently profitable freighter that make up the bulk of the targets are going to be a loss to gank. The chances of a profitable freighter even undocking is going to be so low its just not going to be a viable activity. This is exactly what has happened to barge piracy and jectcan stealing, both of which are now extinct.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:48:55 -
[4] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
barge piracy extinct? wtf are code doing these days ? and doesnt some goon afk 24 hr multi boxer carrier ratter fund miniluv anyway? jus get a few more carriers, problem solved.
Code are not pirates, they are terrorists.
The pirates would only attack barges that were profitable to gank. Code came into being because CCP made it impossible to turn a profit ganking barges, this had the added effect of making every barge a target which punished the people who used to fly and fit them well.
Why exactly should piracy be removed from highsec?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:58:54 -
[5] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:
So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls?
Because its not code causing them.
Ganking is the single most nerfed activity in the entire game, every single year CCP have nerfed it multiple times and each time the same carebears cheer and decry the end of ganking then a not long after start demanding "just one more nerf".
We are now at the point where ganking really is just about gone.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:02:47 -
[6] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
also does it matter whether its profitable or whether uncle jimmy /mittens writes the welfare cheques , barges are still going pop in hisec on a regular basis.
Yes, the removal of entire professions and vast amounts of content in highsec does matter.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:04:46 -
[7] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:as will freighters continue to pop, tho some *effort* may be required in target selection, which imo is a good thing ....
They already select targets.
Again, why do you feel 99.9% safety in highsec while in a freighter is not enough?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:05:55 -
[8] - Quote
Aiwha wrote: Pretty much. CODE ganking barges with no regard for profit killed profitable barge ganking.
CODE came about AFTER profitable barge ganking became impossible.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17323
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:14:06 -
[9] - Quote
Globby wrote:lol every response to me thus far has been "cry more" or "no you"
Its almost as if they cant justify this change.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17328
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:31:51 -
[10] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:miniluv + code have how many thousands of players /alts to draw on for freighter ganking? get more bodies . as was stated in another thread, theres no shortage of 'dumb' freighter pilots who fit triple cargo expanders jumping into uedama/niarja every day wi multi billion isk loads , or has that suddenly changed in the last few days?
More ships needed means more cost which means to turn a profit you need to hit ships with more isk in their holds which means less targets out there which means less stuff blowing up.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17328
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:35:54 -
[11] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its based off red freights record over 221,333 contracts spanning 2,786,739 gate jumps in highsec. That 0.1% is the number of failed contracts. I cannot remember any requirement for all of New Eden's freighter pilots to register their cargo, flight routes or number of jumps with Red Frog Freight (kudos to RFF by the way). The Frogs also have all sorts or rules - highly reasonable, mind you - about where they go and the freight value they carry, so I am fairly certain, without being able to produce the data to prove it, that the well oiled machine that is Red Frog has a lower than average number of failed contracts. I do not believe that 0.1% is a representative number.
It is. This is the risk you face when operating as RFF does and it is a very large data set. If anything it can be argued that freighters are too safe along with every other activity in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:38:22 -
[12] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: Sorry but I am really struggling to have any sympathy. Go to 0.0/LS/WH space to PvP, or HTFU and bring a few more buddies if you want to gank a HS freighter. I don't mean to pick on your in particular Baltec as I know you are an experienced PvPer yourself, but I do get sick of these hypocritical HS gank whines, they just come across as self entitled rants complaining because they feel they have a god given right to be able to profitably gank a freighter in high sec with a couple of destroyers or battlecruisers.
This change is good for the game as a whole and makes PvP fitting a lot more interesting, that is what really matters.
Pirates go where the cargo is and the cargo is in highsec.. And so hopefully this will shift the balance with the profitable cargo now going to be in low/null/wh space, and so those HS gankers will have to step out of high sec and create some content in <0.5 space where they can be killed. Sometimes you can roam around null and low sec and struggle to find anything to shoot at, then you go to high sec and realise why, because all the pirates are camping high sec gates whoring on juicy high sec freighters. Pirates have got fat and out of shape, they need to come back to low sec like the real pirates of the times gone by. *chuckles*
Why would a trader running between amarr and jita go to null?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:44:13 -
[13] - Quote
Creecher Virpio wrote:Globby wrote:
Let me ask you this, where was the buff for ganking when you removed hyperdunking? As you said, "[CCP] likes to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance" but there was no buff to ganking afterwards.
hyper dunking was never intended to be added to the game, it was an unintended game play mechanic/exploit that was kept around for a while, then removed.
So how about when they buffed ship HP?
Or when the upped concord response times?
Or when they removed insurance?
Or when they upped faction police damage?
Or when they did crimewatch?
Or when they upped barge HP?
Or when they made concord tankable?
The shocking thing is I can keep on going with these nerfs and not a single one of these came with a buff.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:47:49 -
[14] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:If anything it can be argued that freighters are too safe along with every other activity in highsec. One can argue all sorts of things, like that shooting defenseless freighters is an expression of badly suppressed violent tendencies. That does not turn a personal opinion into factual truth.
99.9% safety in a freighter.
Profitable barge ganking is impossible (but ganking a t2 fitted curse with no tank is profitable)
Total removal of jectcan thiefs
little to no risk from pve yet some of the highest rewards
Highsec has become far too safe and rewarding.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:49:49 -
[15] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:
You need to think outside the box, there is plenty of juicy targets in <0.5. Yes some people will never step out of HS and so if you want to gank them your going to have to do it for fun rather than profit, but then it should always be more profitable operating in <0.5. Right now the balance is skewed in favour of high sec which is why I've seen even skilled pvpers lower themselves to camping high sec gates purely because of the vast sums of ISK you can make out of it. Much like high sec incursions it needs to be knocked on the head.
You are removing risk from highsec but none of the rewards. Nobody is going to magically move to low sec to transport goods around that isn't doing it now.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:32 -
[16] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
and whats the figures on ganking pre nerfs compared to now in numbers of ships exploding?
The last ice interdiction happened 4 years ago.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:53:50 -
[17] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Highsec has become far too safe and rewarding. So you say. I disagree. I guess the two shall never meet, but fortunately New Eden is big enough to cater for different playstyles.
You are removing my playstyle.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:51 -
[18] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:baltec1 wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:
and whats the figures on ganking pre nerfs compared to now in numbers of ships exploding?
The last ice interdiction happened 4 years ago. burn amarr?, burn jita? arent code considering an ice interdiction on loyals days off work v soon? No they are not.
There has been no ice interdiction for 4 years because of the nerfs making it impossible to pull off. This kind of event generated a lot of content, content that is now gone.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:59:04 -
[19] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:That's because transporting goods around highsec is not very profitable. In fact, its actually a pretty terrible way to make money considering you can put an alt in karma fleet and afktar. I only do transport stuff to support my corp/alliance.
RFF made 2.475 trillion in profits.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:01:08 -
[20] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Highsec has become far too safe and rewarding. So you say. I disagree. I guess the two shall never meet, but fortunately New Eden is big enough to cater for different playstyles. You are removing my playstyle. stop being a drama queen, how much profit does miniluv make from hisec ganking? having to bring a few more catas is 'removing your playstyle' ? LMAO!! can i has ur stuff?
I used to gank barges for profit and do ice interdictions. I also used to go jectcan stealing in a combat hauler to get fights. Both of these activities are now gone. Now CCP are nerfing the last profitable ganking activity yet again with zero justification.
Yes, my playstlye is getting removed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:02:16 -
[21] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:You are removing my playstyle. You mean I don't accept your playstyle being forced on me.
Right now I am the only one having someone elses playstyle forced upon me.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17329
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:14:13 -
[22] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:
A couple more people on comms = more fun...sounds like a buff to your playstyle to me! What else are you going to do for the 15 minutes you have to stay docked up apart from chat?
Again, more people needed means more ships which means more costs which means we need targets with more isk value in their holds. There comes a point when the targets we need to turn a profit are so rare that the activity just isn't viable.
And what happens to the smaller groups? We are already down to just 3-4 groups ganking freighters, making it impossible to operate without huge numbers that the freighter can evade with the help of just one pilot isn't a good thing.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17333
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:15:55 -
[23] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Tippia wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:stop being a drama queen, how much profit does miniluv make from hisec ganking? having to bring a few more catas is 'removing your playstyle' ? Because it is a never-ending series of nerfs after nerfs after nerfs, without ever giving any reason why all those nerfs are needed. If a playstyle is repeatedly punished for no good reason, then pointing out that it is effectively being removed from the game is not the same as being a drama queen. Drama queen is what you see when someone dares suggest that even a single nerf should happen to the other side in this equation. you mean like warr akini suggested a wreck hp increase , thus nerfing ag effective counter against hisec freighter ganking perhaps?
Feel free to point out all the nerfs to AG over the years that match the nerfs to ganking.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17333
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:18:40 -
[24] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:again you complain about all these nerfs, but haven't answered my question .
my question was ;what are the numbers pre nerf compared to now in relation to ships exploding ? u got an answer?
A lot of these nerfs happened before reliable KM data was available, a good few before KB even existed and it also wouldn't account for lower player numbers so no, I cant give you that number, it doesn't exist.
I believe tippia did try with barge data but could only go back to 2012 and that did show barge ganking is down.
But I can tell you, if you think ganking is high now what do you think it was like back when concord could be tanked or when we had access to battleships that were cheaper than todays catalysts?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17333
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:24:33 -
[25] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Tippia wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:you mean like warr akini suggested a wreck hp increase , thus nerfing ag effective counter against hisec freighter ganking perhaps? No. to coin a phrase, color me surprised
They arn't even comparable
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17333
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:30:06 -
[26] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Any chance the ganking sperging can go back to GD where it belongs so we can actually talk about the mods and the eviscerating of the fits as a result?
Oh I'm more than happy to talk about my worries with the gal ships too. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:38:27 -
[27] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote:I really appreciate this buff to freighters, because they sure need it. They are the backbone of industry while being arguably one of the most boring 'professions' to do. It would be great if this trend would continue up until the broken mechanics are removed completely from the game (bumping, friendly webbing) and adding some fun factors for long route freighter hauls as well. That is for another topic, though
You complain about it being a boring activity and that you want more fun factors yet here you are celebrating the continued removal of the only risk you are ever going to face. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:46:25 -
[28] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Lowest priced Anshar on EVE-Central is 7.5B (in Derelik) and a bit more in Jita. At least at the moment of this post.
Nomad is 6.85 in jita |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:59:39 -
[29] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Not that it matters; the underlying argument is hideously wrong-headed to begin with.
Even if they cost north of 10bn, you shouldn't need more than maybe 1GÇô2bn worth of ships to kill them as a worst-case scenario. You should be easily able to get away with far less with a bit of forethought. ISK tanking is an abomination that needs to get shot in the face at every opportunity.
Oh agreed. The hull cost of the target doesn't have any impact on the calculations made by the gankers, its the cargo they are interested in. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:01:15 -
[30] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Even with passive shield recharge?
You have to beat 10hp/s |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:05:59 -
[31] - Quote
Caroline Grace wrote: You seem to be confused about the fact that risk is not the only fun thing you can design within EVE. Perhaps learning how to FC 40 Nados on a gate will be more fun to you too, instead of abusing broken mechanics. You sure seem to be upset about it, though.
What broken mechanics? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:07:13 -
[32] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Tippia wrote:Aiwha wrote:A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GǪin the parts of space where ISK tanking has been properly shot in the face. But since we're talking about ganking in highsec, and about the mindblowingly idiotic notion that the cost of the ship lost should in some way be on part with what's needed to kill it in that part of space, no. They really can't. That's ********. You're ********. The entire point of CONCORD is to make killing random ships in highsec risky. If you want to blap a freighter, you'd better be willing to match the 1.2b that the owner put into their ship hull. If you want to gank a JF, you'd better pony up 5-7b to match what they gambled by undocking their ship. You want all the reward without having to take any risk of isk loss whatsoever. Carebears gonna carebear.
Isk tanking is the shittiest of ideas. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:08:40 -
[33] - Quote
Rowells wrote: That is profit. And are you seriously going to try and pull PLEX as an up front cost? I don't doubt you run defecits at times, bad rolls of the dice and a few internal thefts don't help. Are you trying to say miniluv is a charitabe operation (aside from free love)?
It breaks even, with this change it will be operating at a loss. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:10:21 -
[34] - Quote
helana Tsero wrote:
Assuming your also telling the Goons & co to disband blue donut and remove cynos from their ratting carriers.....
all the nullbears crying here cause there risk free gank ops are getting nerfed are some of the most risk adverse players in the game... jump my scanner in from a wormhole.... watch 20+ people in local run for station....
And there is the ganking is risk free bullshit again. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17334
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:16:37 -
[35] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:
Whatever you say luckbear.
There is a megathron hull in game that under your idea would have the tank of 100 titans. Yes, isk tanking is a terrible idea. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17337
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:21:18 -
[36] - Quote
Rowells wrote: I doubt it. Hard to have a high-ranking member can steal a couple hundred billion in assorted items and say that you aren't coming out more than what you started with.
miniluv has always capitalized on the stupid and fat. I doubt this will put them in the red for long.
I don't care what you think, I know. The guy who set it up was in my corp, we know exactly what its financial position is. That theft was not from the miniluv stockpiles, that was the stash for burn jita and was entirely funded by one guy. Miniluv breaks even. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17337
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:58 -
[37] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:
Whatever you say luckbear.
There is a megathron hull in game that under your idea would have the tank of 100 titans. Yes, isk tanking is a terrible idea. That value is due to rarity, not due to the base hull cost and you should know that. A hull that requires 6b to build should require 6b to suicide gank. The fact that you don't understand value vs. isk cost says a lot.
The base hull cost is 10 trillion. You cant build it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17361
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:32:09 -
[38] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:
Care to link the 10 trillion in minerals that we're spent on that beast luckbear?
Zero.
Its was sold to its current owner over a decade ago for a vast sum of isk. It was given as a reward in the very early days of the game. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17361
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:34:44 -
[39] - Quote
Rowells wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rowells wrote:I doubt it. Hard to have a high-ranking member can steal a couple hundred billion in assorted items and say that you aren't coming out more than what you started with.
miniluv has always capitalized on the stupid and fat. I doubt this will put them in the red for long. I don't care what you think, I know. The guy who set it up was in my corp, we know exactly what its financial position is. That theft was not from the miniluv stockpiles, that was the stash for burn jita and was entirely funded by one guy. Miniluv breaks even.
None of that contradicts what I just said. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17362
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:41:13 -
[40] - Quote
You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17362
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:42:05 -
[41] - Quote
Aiwha wrote: Why the time limit?
This little problem called concord. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17365
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:57:14 -
[42] - Quote
Rowells wrote:baltec1 wrote:You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation. im quoting the dudes in charge (or formally involved) with that organization.
Misquoting. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17365
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:08 -
[43] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jin Kugu wrote: Warr akini used to run 13 ratting carriers to fund miniluv and burned out getting miniluv back in shape after Globby. You're dumb :getout:
Globby (apparently) returned the stolen goods ( source), or a part of them. Also, how can what you say and this quote by baltec "Miniluv does have a budget they have to stick to. Overall they are a profitable organisation." ( source) be true? Someone must be lying.
That was a year ago. Ganking was nerfed since then. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17367
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:07:27 -
[44] - Quote
So why should the obelisk be getting 157,000 more ehp? What evidence is there that freighters need this kind of buff? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17367
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:14:03 -
[45] - Quote
Rowells wrote: oh is it? I believe its quite clear what they are saying. I even linked the source for you.
Said link said the ships stolen were gathering dust. Yes, they were in storage for burn jita and had be bought by one guy, not miniluv.
Seriously, you are talking to the corp that helped found it, ran with it for all the time it has been operating and are good friends with the leadership of it still. Its true that warr has gone and grinded up an utter fortune to fun this project, we lowered our taxes for him to do it. It doesn't make the heaps of isk you think it does. RFF's profits utterly dwarf those of miniluv. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17371
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:26:16 -
[46] - Quote
Aiwha wrote: You want to kill a freighter in highsec, you'd better be willing to risk a bunch of ships to do it.
That already happens. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17372
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:42:31 -
[47] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:AFK flying is unsafe as it always has been. Not only do you have to sit bumpable for your align time like a normal person, but then crawling to your out gate? One bumping stabber and you're not going anywhere till you're dead or they get bored. Highsec is getting a little less risky for freighter pilots, a little more risky for gankers. Gankers are throwing a shitfit because they can't stand risk. Hence, this thread.
Freighters already have a less than 0.1% chance of getting killed, why do they need even more safety? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17372
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:44:19 -
[48] - Quote
ValentinaDLM wrote: What is more worrying is another buff to the tristan, now even the non DC full kiting version probably has as many HP as most brawling frigs. In the frigate PVP meta even a tiny change to HP is substantial to the outcomes and this is basically a buff to gallente while being a nerf to Minmatar unless structure HP is going to be changed to be more in line between races or shield/armor HP adjusted to compensate.
Breacher is more of a worry in my book. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17378
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:14:51 -
[49] - Quote
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you!
Wreck got 15000 HP
Obelisk is getting 157,000 EHP. Jump freighters even more.
Freighters are already 99.9% safe, how is this warranted? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17379
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:15:20 -
[50] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:You have zero credibility, so why do you expect everybody to respect your opinion? Your entire argument is that buffing freighter EHP will end suicide ganking. It will not. You're pulling **** out of your ******* and demanding we acknowledge it. I'd take anybody with a red as blood killboard as more credible than your opinions, because they actually tried something ingame rather than whined on the forums.
Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. That's it. A gank takes 15 pilots now, you bring 20. 30 pilots, you bring 40. Ganks can range from 80m up to 1b in costs. This buff moves it to 100m to 1.3b. That's a pittance.
1.6 billion with 16 people, over 2 billion with these changes which mean most of the current freighters getting ganked are no longer viable targets. The problem isnt that we cant kill them, its that all of these nerfs is making piracy in highsec impossible. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17380
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:31:05 -
[51] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine.
No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17382
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:37:01 -
[52] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I have trouble with the "ganking won't be profitable any more" argument in the context of ganking empty freighters. You are just reaping what you sowed.
A handful of people are abusing the soe missions, we should remove all missions from highsec.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17382
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:39:06 -
[53] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine. No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went. So why are more than a dozen freighters dying every day worth WAY above your profit margin?
There isn't more than a dozen freighters getting ganked per day. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:53:10 -
[54] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets?
Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:10:51 -
[55] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets? Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec? It removes 1, maybe 2 targets. The whales are still there and still WAY profitable. Don't complain just because you're bad at the game. Sheesh. Anybody who wants to get a look at how poor gankers are, go to everybody's favorite killboard that starts with a zed in canada. Hit menu, hit freighters. Look at all the juicy killmails.
The only bads here are the people wanting more safety than 0.1% chance of being ganked in over 2 million jumps. The chance of an average person living in the US being struck by lightning in a given year is estimated at 1 in 960,000. You are more likely to be struck by ******* lightning than ganked in highsec. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:35:50 -
[56] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Change to wreck HP was a massive boon to gankers so they shouldn't be too upset about this change, after all we all should know that when CCP throws you a carrot, you can expect a stick shortly afterwards.
Freighters are getting over 10x more tank than was given with that wreck buff. This is also a class of ship that has been shown to already enjoy less than 0.1% chance of being ganked over 224,000 trips.
There is simply no justification for this to happen to freighters which I will also point out cant fit a DCU in the first place and were given extra HP to make up for that in their balance pass just the other year. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:53:55 -
[57] - Quote
Makkuro Tatsu wrote:Dom Arkaral wrote:You're buffing idiots when you shouldn't. They need education, death is that education. Ah, there is nothing quite like the arrogance of players with a parasitic gameplay style lashing out mindlessly at players who enjoy a different style of gameplay.
The point he is making is that people who are stupid/greedy should not be getting help when things go wrong, it devalues the reward for the people who do take steps to protect themselves. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17392
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:24:59 -
[58] - Quote
Gliese Casserres wrote:Dear lord this thread is going places...
While I see faction DCU's good, I feel that compressing the meta DCU tree is unnessessary. Most of the virgin tight pro fits will suffer and the value of certain spaces dropping those juicy meta 4 will decrease.
Overall in my opinion, CCP is trying to make way too many changes at once. Mull this over for a while.
A lot of frigate fits are going in the bin with this change but there are a few that are getting an unwanted buff with this. The breacher for example will be more of a pain and the Hecate is getting a fairly big buff it really doesn't need. Black ops are also getting the squeeze via this and other changes to the CPU required. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17394
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:29:40 -
[59] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You mean like when their loot gets popped? Oh wait...
Being able to pop a 60 billion isk wreck with anything that could fire 500 hp damage was daft and needed to be changed. Same with the old boomerang tactic that needed to be removed.
Buffing people who actively chose not to protect themselves is not something CCP should ever be doing. Equally CCP should not be buffing what is already the safest activity in EVE. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17396
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:36:06 -
[60] - Quote
Big Mama Daft wrote:
Sounds legit. 50 catalysts x 1.1 mil each = 55 mil "invested" yet gankers cry all over their soup. So much lol.
Why should it take 50 pilots to stand any chance of killing a freighter when the freighter needs just one other pilot to be 99.9% safe? Also average catalyst price is 11 million.
Big Mama Daft wrote: A little more tank off the shelf for the little guys, where all of a sudden I can think of more important modules to fit rather than an obligatory DCU?
Freighters cant fit DCU, they were given more structure in their balance pass to make up for this and it was stated given them a DCU would make them overpowered.
Big Mama Daft wrote: "I'll unsub all my ganking alt" boohoo. Go ahead.
Getting rid of content in highsec that has been with us from the very start of the game is not a good thing. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17396
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:41:58 -
[61] - Quote
Sissy Fuzz wrote:Globby wrote:The only buffs to ganking was the removal of wreck shooting, which was to be honest a "low investment high damage uncounterable game mechanic" that rightfully was removed. Nice logic, sir. Let's see bumping nerfed then. You know the completely asymmetric mechanic that allows a single bumper to freeze indefinetely a 5bil freighter in a high-risk situation, AP or not. While the -10 gank fleet pilots waltz in when they are good and ready after napping or taking a leak, to be "exposed" maybe 30-45 seconds before the gank. They are not really exposed, of course, since they are warping around most of the time. Bumping is an offensive act that like a point interferes with another player's freedom of movement. That should carry some implication as any other offensive act - bumper going suspect, in think. Even if the bumper gets wasted, the whole event is still abnormously skewed, ISK-wise. But it would raise the complexity for the gankers to a level that matches the outcome. In before "ganking is elite pvp as it is complicated and requires enormous amounts of planning and skill". Nope, not so. High-sec ganking is a no-brainer and still much too easy.
So gank the bumping ship then. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17398
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:48:24 -
[62] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote: Bumpers go suspect..
The game can't magically guess who is the bumper and the bumper ;)
Every time they come out with this it gets pointed out it can be used against them by the very people they want to nerf out of existence. But bumping is for another thread. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17401
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 10:49:19 -
[63] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:This change is a lot more than just freighters. Not having to turn on the DC after every jump - yes please. Not to mention it now frees up a low slot if I want to experiment without having to sacrifice all hull resistances.
The big issue with freighters in this is that they are getting buffed to compensate for the nerf to DCU (a mod they cant fit in the first place) and with the size of the structure hitpoints as huge as it is and with the main way of tanking being bulkheads it means this buff is massive on freighters. Add into this the fact the freighters have already been buffed to compensate for the lack of a DCU when they had their teircide the other year.
Freighters are the extreme and the most obvious example of why a direct buff to hull resists on all ships is not a very good idea. I honestly think no ships need even more built in tank and that this DCU idea needs to be scrapped and rethought. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17403
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 11:29:50 -
[64] - Quote
Fraxxton wrote:Now look at that. Two thirds of this thread got deleted - not even moved elsewhere, but actually deleted - because it was not the type of feedback CCP wanted? I now feel silly that I have spent time trying to figure out how modified resist profiles and a passive DCU would affect gameplay. Somebody might later unilaterally decide that my conclusions from this work are unwanted too, so I am not going to bother posting them here (not that I believe to be able to offer super extra special insight, mind you).
"Do what you want, you're going to do it anyway."
The AG mob turned it into a shitfest as they always do without posting anything helpful, just "hur dur tearz". That the posts countering them had actual feedback dosn't halt the fact that CCP will delete them as they were quoting drivel. Best tactic we can do from now is continue to post facts and numbers to back up our case and if the AG mob try to derail again with shitposting just posts the stats again and tell them to stfu and get constructive.
I sure as **** wont stop posing the ludicrous results this disaster is going to cause. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:01:20 -
[65] - Quote
Amak Boma wrote: freighters and jump freighters should have 99% powergrid / cpu requirements reduction hull resistances would be [ penalized to 30% for tech1 32% meta4 34% tech2 36% faction 38% deadspace and 45 for officer freighter could have full damage control bonus of 60% hull resistances only for elite damage control and the top officer damage control
They were balanced already around not using a DCU, they got raw hp added to their structure. Seriously, demonstrate to me why an obelisk needs 157,000 more ehp. Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:44:57 -
[66] - Quote
Lucas Kel wrote:But they aren't getting the benefit of the module for free, they are getting a benefit of ships in the game being balanced, the same as every other ship. If they were excluded, they would be the only ship class not to receive a natural boost to EHP, and they would be vastly behind ships who could equip a DC but were better without them. Even ganking ships will benefit as they will be able to retain their full DPS but take more damage before getting wiped out.
Hictors are different because you're talking about an extremely speciialised ship class, not a module that is used on nearly every ship in the game, but I would expect CCP to consider in the event of that change the effects on other ships and if other ships should be buffed too - as they have in this case.
Freighters cant fit a DCU, they lose nothing when the DCU is nerfed as they cant fit it and never have been able to fit it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:03:03 -
[67] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its already been shown that the chances of being ganked in a freighter or jump freighter stands at less than 0.1% out of over 2 million jumps. You keep repeating that. It has not been shown. You don't even have access to the data required to potentially show it. Red Frog Freight statistics do not become representative for all of New Eden simply by you repeating them over and over again.
Feel free to show me another data set gathered over a year and that covers over 2 million gate jumps. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:14:33 -
[68] - Quote
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Obviously CCP has the data, and have seen this as a problem. Which is why they are attempting to balance things. Any limited data collection you have done is not the complete data set.
We have the killboards, and this data set. Both show that compared to the number freighters and jumps made by them the number getting ganked is incredibly low. RFF are the largest freighter organisation out there, their end of year results are very detailed and very big.
There is zero evidence any change is needed to freighter EHP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:28:34 -
[69] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Feel free to show me another data set gathered over a year and that covers over 2 million gate jumps. I don't have to. Since RFF can only provide data for their own freighter movements, which are by their very nature only a subset of all freighter movements in New Eden, *you* need to prove that the data is a meaningful representation. Since you would need to access the full data available -- which I somehow doubt CCP has allowed you to do -- to offer proof, you're in a bit of a pickle.
Why is it that I am always having to go hunt around for any evidence? And why is it that every single time I do you lot can only ever reply with "no that doesn't count" Meanwhile you lot spout blatant lies that have been shown to be wrong thousands of times and never back up anything you say and then demand I go and find prove you are wrong.
I have given you a data set so ******* large its measured in the millions and you say no no no its not enough, red freight don't count. Why? Why do they not count? Is it because they actually use the mechanics given to them to make themselves 99.9% safe? Or is it because I have dumped a fact so large you simply cant counter it so you just want to ignore it?
Well too ******* bad, I have shown that without doubt freighters are 99.9% safe if you use the tools given to you. I have pointed out that a ship class that was only balanced recently around not being able to fit a DCU does not need a 33% buff to its structure resists to compensate for CCP nerfing a mod it cant even fit. The more you put your fingers in your ears and vomit your baseless comments over this thread the more of a window licker you look. We get it, you are bad at this game and you want daddy CCP to hold your hand and expel an entire playstye from the game. But let me tell you, your grade 1 shitposting is telling and the fact that only one side in this thread is posting numbers and working out what the changes is going to do to fitting is the info that will stand out.
So lets have it, show me the thousands of freighters that are getting ganked per month. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:34:02 -
[70] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: So if you want to work out roughly how many jumps in highsec each year total for haulers there might be, then calculate a sample size, at max it will be around 20,000 jumps needed for a high level of confidence. 2.8 million as a sample size is exceedingly good.
If it were a random sample size it might be. However in this case we have a sample which is already biased by Red frogs contract rules. Which limit the size/value of the cargo dramatically, and therefore significantly skew the sample. And even with this limitation which 'makes them safe' they still suffer a 0.1% gank rate, which quite frankly when talking haulers is huge. Haulers can do hundreds of jumps a day, which means that gank rate means a red frog hauler can expect to lose a freighter once a fortnight. And that isn't 'one freighter across all of red frog a fortnight'. That is a freighter per pilot.
They can expect less than 0.1% chance of loss over 2,786,739 jumps through highsec gates. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17406
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:35:39 -
[71] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:So if you want to work out roughly how many jumps in highsec each year total for haulers there might be, then calculate a sample size, at max it will be around 20,000 jumps needed for a high level of confidence. 2.8 million as a sample size is exceedingly good. You are abusing stats. Please stop. RFF stats are not representative because it would be like doing a survey by calling only women. It doesn't matter how big your sample size if the sample has an inherent selection bias. RFF operates under a specific set of policies, some of which are designed carefully to reduce ganking. You simply can't take their data and apply it carte blanche to freighter ganking in general without a lot more analysis of data we don't have access to. I'm not saying the RFF number's AREN'T representative. They very well might be (bias, after all, doesn't always cause inaccuracy). But anyone saying they necessarily ARE representative is simply spin-doctoring or ignorant about basic statistical principles.
They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17408
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:45:57 -
[72] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.
No they are not, they are only representative of themselves. Also, if everyone had a webbing alt you'd simply counter that by using a mandatory scanning/suicide tackle BB, and then we get back to the root of all problems - bumping.
Bring facts not your personal opinion.
Here we have the largest freighter organisation in EVE using the current mechanics to make themselves 99.9% safe.
Based upon this evidence it make zero sense to give freighters a 33% buff to structure resists to compensate for the nerfing of a module they cannot even fit. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17408
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:46:59 -
[73] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:baltec1 wrote: They are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics.
To whit, they are representative of how safe you can make it to operate using the current mechanics WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING THE HAULING YOU WON'T DO. There is a lot of hauling RFF refuses to do, which is an inherent part of their risk reduction policies. It's certainly possible to argue that none of that other hauling is necessary, but it's not an argument I have a side on and it wouldn't make things any less contentious in this thread :)
Ok lets have it, what are you wishing to haul. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17408
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:49:41 -
[74] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:this thread keeps on going in circles
MAKE PROPOSITIONS FFS
I'm out of this cancer thread
I have.
If CCP want to nerf the DCU then split the mod into 3. Hull, Armour and shield. Don't bother with the 33% buff to all ships, it isn't needed and causes a huge number of problems. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17408
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:55:15 -
[75] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
What kind of evidence do you want? That webbing freighters can be 100% reliably countered by a single suicide BB and that after the first bump lands webs are useless? Those enough for you?
Gather at least 2,786,739 jumps made by freighters, using all the current tools to protect themselves and see how many get killed. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17409
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:06:21 -
[76] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:So I'm confused it seems people are upset that is going to get a little harder to chew threw freighter hull and other Pape are upset that people are upset about that.
What's wrong with just reducing the total hp from the freighter hull? Unless ccp thinks they need a buff but for some reason thought it would be better not to just come out and day that. .... but I really think the discution about what this means for freighters should be put into a new thread as any conversation on the misusing or how it effects other apps is just getting down out at this point
The problem is that a ship like the obelisk is getting 157,000 more ehp on top of its current tank, the anshar is close to a million with this change.
But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff just as questionable as the freighters are getting and adding 33% more tank to ships with no tank doesn't exactly make much sense, especially if they have chosen to not fir a tank to gain in other areas. From personal experience that added hull is going to mean an extra volly of torps from a bomber at the very least and when you have defenders currently landing just as the target is blowing up that extra hull is going to make hunting out in null that much harder and for no logical reason.
The whole 33% change just doesn't work very well in a lot of situations and with a lot of ships and their fits. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17409
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:10:19 -
[77] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But if all other ships gain a 33% boost then yes, they lose out because relative to all otehr ships they are worse off.
CCP are not increasing firepower so no, they don't lose out at all. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:18:13 -
[78] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Except red frog pilots are outsourced. They are freighter pilots like you and me. Not trained professionals lol.
Even if they were trained professionals, they are using the exact same skills, tools and mechanics we all have access to. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:27:18 -
[79] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:... Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF. As I also said, it's also representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve. It's representative of the level of risk that anyone can achieve provided the general statistical ecosystem of freighter pilots providing all other hauling doesn't change significantly. That's great and all, except that if the entire high-sec hauling industry were to actually fly under RFF policy to reduce their risk, the actual result on ganking #'s would be unpredictable. RFF stats are NOT in any way representative of the potential across-the-board safety for all high-sec haulers as a whole, because the minute every hauler started flying like that the landscape will have changed significantly, changing up the balance completely. The actual risk to high-sec freight today includes all haulers, not just RFF. Only CCP has that #, for the most part. If everyone started flying like RFF, neither the current global # NOR the RFF # would remain stable or accurate to the new ecosystem. Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter.
Got any evidence this is going to happen? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:28:19 -
[80] - Quote
As a side note, Could anyone give me a valid reason to buff the Avatar with 33% more structure resists? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:41:28 -
[81] - Quote
Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 21:52:24 -
[82] - Quote
Crackforbreakfast wrote:baltec1 wrote:Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists. Tanking an Avatar, for example, with full tank mods given the way stacking penalties work there is no reason not to use a DC module, a DC gives more armor EHP vs an extra EANM, for this reason Titans will now be using a DC module and will also be using one after the tiericide, according to previous calculations that comes out at 59.8%ish hull resistance with a DC. So nothing will change in that respect.
Oh I beg to differ.
The Avatar killed on 2015-09-23 22:51 had no DC fitted, this change would gift such titans with more EHP to burn through. Extra time for help to arrive or for reps to land. Its actually a lot more common for a titan to not have a DCU fitted than a lot of people think. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 22:27:00 -
[83] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: If you can propose a better way to make fitting DCU an optional choice instead of a no-brainer requirement with less impact to the meta balance than what has been proposed, we're all ears...
Split the DCU into three consisting of structure, armour and shield. Continue with making it passive and have its stats land between the tow tanking options currently available.
Taking armour as the example we would haave resists that are easy to fit and capless but off the lowest bonus, EAMNs that offer better resists at higher fitting costs, armour DCU that offers better omni resists and capless but higher fitting costs and finally armour hardeners that give the best resists but are an active module.
Option two is more radical and would be to expand damage controls and turn them into dedicated hull resistance module family like the energised plating for armour which would help make hull tanking a more viable thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 22:29:56 -
[84] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:baltec1 wrote:Oh I beg to differ.
The Avatar killed on 2015-09-23 22:51 had no DC fitted, this change would gift such titans with more EHP to burn through. Extra time for help to arrive or for reps to land. Its actually a lot more common for a titan to not have a DCU fitted than a lot of people think. If your'e looking at the one I think you are, I would argue this guy absolutely should have had a DCU and not a Heatsink on that fit. Maybe there are legit Avatar fits that don't use DCU's, but I don't think that is one of them.
There are zero reasons to not fit a DCU but people don't fit them enough for it to be a thing. Such people in my book should not be getting a buff |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17410
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 22:39:07 -
[85] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Split the DCU into three consisting of structure, armour and shield. Continue with making it passive and have its stats land between the tow tanking options currently available.
Taking armour as the example we would haave resists that are easy to fit and capless but off the lowest bonus, EAMNs that offer better resists at higher fitting costs, armour DCU that offers better omni resists and capless but higher fitting costs and finally armour hardeners that give the best resists but are an active module.
Option two is more radical and would be to expand damage controls and turn them into dedicated hull resistance module family like the energised plating for armour which would help make hull tanking a more viable thing.
We already have ANP's for low CPU passive resistance on armour. While it might be nice to have a low omni resist module for shields separate from the DCU, if we were going to split them off then the armour & shield bonus should just be deleted, and we then we can decide if there is enough justification for shield to get a passive omni resist module similar to ANP's in some way. Armour however certainly does not need it.
Agreed with the armour.
A low slot shield option would be handy on shield ships that struggle to fit mwd, tackle, booster and tank by allowing then to sacrifice firepower/speed.
I however edge more towards the dedicated hull tank resist mod approach. Its something we do not currently have and more options is a good thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17417
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 04:48:13 -
[86] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Agreed with the armour.
A low slot shield option would be handy on shield ships that struggle to fit mwd, tackle, booster and tank by allowing then to sacrifice firepower/speed.
I however edge more towards the dedicated hull tank resist mod approach. Its something we do not currently have and more options is a good thing.
I wouldn't want to see sustainable hull tanking become a thing. The whole point of hull is that it is meant to be your ships real systems, and personally I'd like to see a lot more module damage taken when you are in hull, as the current amount that can happen is pitiful. But DCU's being hull tanking only I'd have no issues with.
We have hull reppers, bulkheads and at the moment the DCU that allow hull tanking to be done but its not a very viable thing outside of a few hulls and mostly employed as bait. The area lacks a dedicated structure resist line of mods so if DCU are to be nerfed it would be better making them into a line of mods for helping make structure tanking a thing.
As the current changes stand CCP are going to blanket buff a lot of ships that don't need it, some of them massively and without justification while at the same time the DCU is still going to be mandatory on the bulk of fits because it still adds shields and armour. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:43:40 -
[87] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:baltec1 wrote:
But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff .
Again you go with the lying. The only way the individual hecate is getting a buff, is if they didnt have a dc fitted before. But as far as i can tell, most, if not all hecates ive met, have had a dc fitted. So no, they are not getting a buff then. Oh, and if you think they do, then please show me the math on it, so i can help prove you wrong
It has 800 base structure, the added 33% resists directly to the hull will not stack with its defense bonus which adds another 33%. This destroyer is going to have roughly the same hull ehp of todays stabber before you fit any mods to it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:50:00 -
[88] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything.
If you get bumped with a web ship helping you you deserve to lose the freighter. We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:55:42 -
[89] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:baltec1 wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:baltec1 wrote:
But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff .
Again you go with the lying. The only way the individual hecate is getting a buff, is if they didnt have a dc fitted before. But as far as i can tell, most, if not all hecates ive met, have had a dc fitted. So no, they are not getting a buff then. Oh, and if you think they do, then please show me the math on it, so i can help prove you wrong It has 800 base structure, the added 33% resists directly to the hull will not stack with its defense bonus which adds another 33%. This destroyer is going to have roughly the same hull ehp of todays stabber before you fit any mods to it. Still didnt show me any math that shows that a hecate after the change will have more hp then before the change (that is as i posted considering most ppl do fit a dc on their hecate)
I literally just said it will get close to the current stabbers hull. Are you even reading before you act all outraged at me? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 16:14:14 -
[90] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote:And ladies and gents, we have the winner of the biggest liar on the forums Why should i bother even debating with you when you talk this much **** gonna give you a hint "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare"
Capitals then, ****.
Entering warp requires 75% of max velocity. Webifiers lower the maximum velocity. If you are already above the warp threshold velocity before web(s) are applied, you will instantly enter warp when web(s) are applied. Stasis Webifier II: -60% max velocity Web 0: 75% of max velocity to warp Web 1: 75% * (1 - 60% web * 1.0 stacking penalty) = 30% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 2: 30% * (1 - 60% web * 0.869119980800 stacking penalty) = 14.35% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 3: 14.35% * (1 - 60% web * 0.57058314351 stacking penalty) = 9.44% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 4: 9.44% * (1 - 60% web * 0.282955154023 stacking penalty) = 7.8% of pre-web max velocity to warp Example: Accelerate to 15% of max velocity, then apply double webs, and the ship will instantly enter warp. [Easy to calculate 15% = (max velocity / 10) plus half of that] |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 16:23:36 -
[91] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:And ladies and gents, we have the winner of the biggest liar on the forums Why should i bother even debating with you when you talk this much **** gonna give you a hint "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" Capitals then, ****. Entering warp requires 75% of max velocity. Webifiers lower the maximum velocity. If you are already above the warp threshold velocity before web(s) are applied, you will instantly enter warp when web(s) are applied. Stasis Webifier II: -60% max velocity Web 0: 75% of max velocity to warp Web 1: 75% * (1 - 60% web * 1.0 stacking penalty) = 30% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 2: 30% * (1 - 60% web * 0.869119980800 stacking penalty) = 14.35% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 3: 14.35% * (1 - 60% web * 0.57058314351 stacking penalty) = 9.44% of pre-web max velocity to warp Web 4: 9.44% * (1 - 60% web * 0.282955154023 stacking penalty) = 7.8% of pre-web max velocity to warp Example: Accelerate to 15% of max velocity, then apply double webs, and the ship will instantly enter warp. [Easy to calculate 15% = (max velocity / 10) plus half of that] To be fair with bad placement when you jump through the you can be bumped b4 you even get up to that speed or before your webs can even get in range. Now multi boxers do have an advantage in its easier to get close to the freighter b4 it decloak but no webs are not a get out of gank free card so long as you don't mess up. Now in not saying they should be but I am punting out the idea of using a Web right is all you need is false
A hyena's web range covers the gate entirely and with 3 webs an ark needs to hit just 17.84m/s to enter warp. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17420
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 17:34:12 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.
We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).
In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.
You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.
We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.
Its not ganking you are removing from highsec its piracy. If you cant turn a profit then you cant pirate ships and all of these buffs to tank are resulting in it becoming impossible to turn a profit. You are turning freighter ganking into an act of random destruction rather than targeted and that is not good for EVE. This is what has happened to mining barges which as a result of this are even more out of reach of pirates. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17422
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 17:57:12 -
[93] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Lucas, you dont seem to realise the webber can get closer to the freighter while the freighter is still cloaked. I do that with an astero to get a freighter into warp in one or two seconds after breaking cloak.
Since a sebo'd ship is easy for a scout to spot, you can decide whether you want to jump the freighter into system at all or whether you fancy your chances.
He does know, he has been told all about this thousands of times. He is only continuing so he can bog down any discussion to the point where any posts related to concerns over nerfs to ganking are deleted or ignored. Just make your point and then ignore him, he adds nothing to this conversation and never has. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17422
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:15:26 -
[94] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
If you want to make them less important strip the shield and armor resists.
Despite the fact this will nerf all of my fits to some degree I agree with this idea.
I would also expand it. Current DCU acts as the omni resist mod and add in a new line of mods for each resist. If DCU are to be nerfed then lets make the most of this and give hull tanking the buff it needs. This way we can avoid the whole 33% flat buff that is going to cause so many problems. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17423
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:26:25 -
[95] - Quote
Ann Angel wrote:i don't see what the big issue is with freighters getting buffed.. if it costs more in ships to gank them you will only be forced to choose which ones that are to be ganked more carefully and supply the ships needed to do so accordingly. Last i knew it was a set amount of catalysts. about 20 and they would gank any and every freighter that came through empty or not
Thats not how pirates operate.
And this isn't a small change, the anshar will be around a million EHP which is why I have just changed my skill training to get one. It wont even need a web, I can just brute force my way around highsec. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17423
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:40:06 -
[96] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:And this isn't a small change, the anshar will be around a million EHP which is why I have just changed my skill training to get one. It wont even need a web, I can just brute force my way around highsec. Perhaps you will. You won't be entirely safe, and you can still be bumped for hours even if you don't get killed in ether one or multiple gank runs, but then I guess that's the benefit of spending 7 billion isk on a ship.
Unlike you I am perfectly willing to use the tools and mechanics to beat them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17425
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:23:40 -
[97] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Unlike you I am perfectly willing to use the tools and mechanics to beat them. It seems that if them adding more EHP to JFs is what it takes for you to train into one, then you weren't willing in the first place. .
I was going for an ark but the anshar's now 1 million ehp is hands down better. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17426
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:11:09 -
[98] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.
You can continue the arguments......
I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter
The problem with blanket buffs is that ships that have no need to be buffed get buffed too, often resulting in crazy effects. Thats why blanket buffs are always argued against, they cause more problems than they fix.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17426
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:13:03 -
[99] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion. There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%.
That messes with the bulkhead mods. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17426
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 12:38:13 -
[100] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:I don't think that even the miners shed quite as many buckets of tears as the hs gankers in this thread. Come to low sec and below, you'll have a lot more fun than shooting at fish in a barrel in high sec.
They havent spent the last decade bitching about being shot at while refusing to even fit a tank on their ship. The valid worries pirates have over these changes comes on the back of an average of 2-3 big nerfs to their gameplay every year for the last 8 years all just to make the game safer for people who refuse to make any effort to protect themselves.
If your playstyle had seen as many nerfs made to it as high sec piracy has seen you would also be kicking up a stink over yet more nerfs. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17428
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 13:32:02 -
[101] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote: 1. reduced yield to procurer and retriever 25%
Barges were buffed to the point where they are not profitable to gank when t2 fitted with no tank. They have also lost options when CCP gave the the ore hold, this means that the choice of fitting cargo expanders is no longer an option. Todays barges are not viable targets for pirates even if fitted with no tank.
Barge pilots don't adapt to anything, they just go for max yield on a procurer and left it mine away in safety.
GetSirrus wrote: 2. reduced refining effectiveness. This one alone impacts 16 ores skills which now need to be trained to level 5, plus requires the use of hardwaire Beancounter RX-804. (which requires Cybernetics 4, if you did not already have this).
Actually refining went up depending where you go.
GetSirrus wrote: 3. arbitrary scale back of ME and PE on BPO to 10 and 20%
Cant adapt to that.
GetSirrus wrote: 4 additional taxes to industry including POS (and list can go on)
Plenty of adaption happens elsewhere, industrialists just don't whinge about it at every opportunity. They have long since HTFU and got on with the game. "One more nerf" - I laugh everything I see some "woe is me" posting.
[/quote]
Its not industrialists that whine its the carebears and they have never stopped whining. Back in the mining interdictions they chose the come to the forums and make new thread after new thread for 18 months bitching about how helpless their anti-tanked barges were. Gankers don't post threads demanding their lives to be made easier but sure as **** kick up a fuss when yet another nerf happens to them.
In a matter of weeks after this change goes through we will see the same carebear faces demanding even more safety in highsec yet again demand "just one more nerf". |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17428
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 13:37:50 -
[102] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:The tears are also a good substitute for vinegar, gonna collect some of those while I'm here as well.
This is basically all the AG mob have contributed to this thread. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17436
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:29:54 -
[103] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? The shield and armor resists are most of the reason to fit a damage control on several of my fits.
It's the only reason I fit them. If CCP want to make them optional it's the shield and armour resists that need Nerfing not the structure. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17437
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 05:11:25 -
[104] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important. 15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible. Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot. Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive. Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills) T2 DC: 15% DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
DC adds 15% to shields too which add to the buffer of an armour tanker so in most cases the DCU will add more tank. Its also going the remain a must have mod for shield ships due to it being a lowslot mod and mids being a bit of a premium on a lot of hulls. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17438
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 12:05:45 -
[105] - Quote
Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:You know that bit where I said "real fleet"....people don't take 800mm plated BS/BC on those. LOL at that, quite frankly.
Sheesh.
I mean fair enough I didn't explicitly quantify "real fleet", but honestly I shouldn't need to.
ProTip: A real fleet involves logi, this in turn is married to resists. When you have 20 logi ships resist are important for small ships (T2/T3 cruisers) and effective buffer for battleships. At lvl 5 single Tungsten plate give this ship 5k additional armor. From armor buffer perspective this ( 5000 armor points before resists ) will give you more than 15% flat bonus from DCU. If you have enough logistic ships bigger buffer is more important than final resist to rep amount ratio. Remote armor reps boost your armor after the logistic ships lock you and module cycles. You need to survive long enough to get them. ProTip: When you have enough logi 33% structure buffer and extra 5000 armor on battleship before resist will keep you alive longer than DCU. If enemy is using alpha doctrine your chances are even bigger.
Looking at my old baltec fleet mega if you go without the dcu you lose the 15% resists to shields and the 40% bonus to structure (with the new mods). To replace this now free slot with a t2 Energized Adaptive plating will cost 6 more CPU which I don't have going spare. Which means I need to fit a prototype which saves me cpu (only 24 cpu as opposed to the current 30 for the DCU) but that only nets me the 15% to armour resists.
The 33% more structure doesn't make up for the loss, Im better off still with the DCU as it provides more buffer than the Energized plating to the tune of roughly 10-15k ehp. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17439
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 15:41:11 -
[106] - Quote
Code First wrote:baltec1 wrote: Looking at my old baltec fleet mega if you go without the dcu you lose the 15% resists to shields and the 40% bonus to structure (with the new mods). To replace this now free slot with a t2 Energized Adaptive plating will cost 6 more CPU which I don't have going spare. Which means I need to fit a prototype which saves me cpu (only 24 cpu as opposed to the current 30 for the DCU) but that only nets me the 15% to armour resists.
The 33% more structure doesn't make up for the loss, Im better off still with the DCU as it provides more buffer than the Energized plating to the tune of roughly 15-20k ehp.
Don't know how tight your fit was in case of power grid. How this numbers will look like if you put there 1600mm plate instead of another resist, if you lack grid what implant you need to use. On a battleship 3% power grid implant give enough grid for a 1600 plate, but 3% implant to CPU offer around 20 CPU - not enough to fit any thing. 1600mm plate provide 5k of raw armor before considering resist. From what i checked buff is huge, as 33% structure resist combined with 5000 of additional armor points give very big bonus to EHP. Big part of this EHP boost is moved from structure to armor, and thank to this is affected by armor resists. DCU shield resist for armor battleships is not important after first shoots.
You still have that 40% bonus to structure resists. Buffer fits I honestly cant see giving up the DCU. Active tank I could see going with something else but the DCU is still a very powerful mod on nearly all of my fits. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17439
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 17:24:07 -
[107] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Just an FYI baltec, but a 'refuge' anm provides 15.36% resists for no cpu cost and is usually cheaper on the market too.
At least until tieracide i guess...
DCU don't suffer from stacking penalties |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17442
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 09:13:06 -
[108] - Quote
Shova'k wrote:
the freighter/orca/bowhead wrecks being 15,000 hp now means it will take alot more for anti-gankers to blap the wrecks in order to deny loot very unlikely even a tornado could do it in 1 shot unless u get a very lucky critical volley lol.
You do realize that the obelisk is getting 157,000 more ehp out of this right? Gifting freighters more than 10x the tank that was given to wrecks and JF significantly more to compensate for the nerfing of a mod they cant even use is not exactly an even trade.
Equally this change isn't going to do what it is aimed to do. The DCU is still going to be pretty mandatory on most fits. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17443
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 17:06:58 -
[109] - Quote
Shova'k wrote: still wont be much harder to gank with cata alts or talos alts in fact enough of either could gank any ship in game in even a 1.0 (burn jita 0.9 and burn amarr 1.0 events prove this) and it dont really cost that much.
Current cost to gank with talos stands at 1.6 billion in 0.6 space, with this change your are adding effectively another cargo expanded charon worth of tank to jump freighters which as you can guess is going to mean a lot more ships will be required.
Shova'k wrote: a little extra tank is only gonna make the gankers grumble a little that they need a few more ships.
This isn't a little more tank, its a vast amount more tank being added. This is the biggest nerf to ganking since the insurance nerf and a nerf which isn't doing to do the job its supposed to do. DCU is still going to be a must have mod on most ships. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17443
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 17:19:42 -
[110] - Quote
Shova'k wrote: lol 1.6 billion is way to fracking cheap to gank a 7 bill ship any way you look at it this wont change **** it will still be dirt cheap compared to the investment of the person getting ganked.
Isk tanks dont exist in EVE and never should, its a ****** way to balance things.
Shova'k wrote: and CCP always favours ganking this is tbh the only true nerf to ganking removing insurance didnt hurt them at all in fact ganking went on a constant rise after the insurance nerf even ganking for lulz to pad killboards they gank cheap fit marauders and empty freighters/JF's cause they can. doubt this will change any of that lol specially now that its damn near impossible to deny them their loot with 15,000 hp wrecks.
You need to brush up on your history before you continue down this path.
The insurance nerf massively hurt ganking as it removed fully insured battleships from gankers. There has been other nerfs that have also hurt ganking from faster concord response times to more ship HP right up to the change to make concord untankable. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17444
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 18:54:56 -
[111] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:This isn't a little more tank, its a vast amount more tank being added. This is the biggest nerf to ganking since the insurance nerf and a nerf which isn't doing to do the job its supposed to do. It is a welcome rebalance that strengthens freighters, no matter if that is the job it is supposed to do or just a side effect.
The goal is to rebalance the DCU so they are not a must have mod. With these changes they are still a must have mod on most ships and break the balance on several ships that cant even fit them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17444
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 19:10:17 -
[112] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:With these changes they are still a must have mod on most ships and break the balance on several ships that cant even fit them. Only if by "break the balance" you mean "shift the balance towards disadvantaged ships". Which, like I said, is a welcome rebalance.
I don't care how hard you try I'm not going to chase you down this shitposting road AG always tries.
I will say again, after this change this mod will still be a must have on most ships. It fails to meet the goals set out in the OP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17445
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 06:26:15 -
[113] - Quote
Shova'k wrote: no one ever said anything about isk tanks there is this thing called risk vs reward which barely applies to ganking now that the wrecks for the freighter/JF are 15 k hp their loot isnt getting poped by thrashers any more. they have a risk free way to tackle anything in high sec using npc corp alts in machariels to bump stuff till they get the gank squad there. their should be some risk in ganking stuff it shouldnt be just worth it to gank empty ships that cost 10-20x more the the cost of ships doing the gank. (even cheaper when using catlysts just requires more people/cooridination)
if anything there is a gank shield for gankers it is just to easy to gank very expensive ships with very cheap ship and u can do it with characters a week old in dirt cheap t1 fit catalysts and the ships they gank can be high skill req tech 2 hulls that is far from balanced risk vs reward it heavly favours gankers still.
You can avoid all risk of being ganked just by using a single web ship. Have you even worked out the maths of the number of people required to gank a jump freighter with a million EHP using t1 catalysts? This is exactly the sort of baseless opinion orientated feedback we do not need.
Quote: the insurance nerf did nothing the proof is in how rapment ganking is today the only people that got hurt by the insurance nerf where the ones not willing to make more friends to join them and that is their own fault. and the insurance nerf didn't hurt gankers at all period it gave them a very marginal amount of risk vs reward for something that was basically no risk at all before that nerf. as for the concord buffs those all happened so long ago that it dont matter and that was pure balance fixes not a nerf to ganking it was making something that was totally broken beyond all beleif and giving it a very tiny balance fix. gankers just dont want any risk but want all the reward lol instead every one else has all the risk for much lower reward being the victim.
Again let's keep personal opinions out of this and stick to facts. It is a fact that CCP took away effectively free battleships which no matter how you look at it is a big nerf evident enough by the simple fact that nobody ganks with battleships.
Now can we stick to the subject at hand? This isn't a bumping thread it's about changes to the DCU with the aim of making them less of a must have mod. As it stands the change does not make the mod any less needed than today and also breaks several ships in the process. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17446
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 10:38:30 -
[114] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No you can't red freight disagrees.
Quote:A viable number. Less than some of the ganks I've been in where we've done a shocking amount of overkill in a 1.0 because people didn't want to be left behind.
Lets have this viable number. Tell us how many it will take.
Quote: Of course they do. Smartbomb ganks on multiboxers are done in battleships. The only reason they are less common is because there's less multiboxers, not because gankers were punished.
Plenty of multi boxing miners out there, no use of battleships in ganking. Gonna need to see some evidence for that statement. I would also like to see evidence for battleships being used in hauler ganking aka battleships using guns.
Quote:Success! They will be less of a must have mod, and no ships appear to be broken. Good job CCP!
Every ship I have that uses a DCU now will still use a DCU after this change. This idea changes nothing but you already know that, you only support it because of your hatred of a particular play style. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17446
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:44:51 -
[115] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
In addition, they take a hell of a lot more precautions than just a single web ship, they also fit a tank, they actively pilot, they pick their flight times to avoid gank events and they restrict the collateral to low limits.
When the risk stands at less than 0.1% over 2.7 million jumps it kinda is 100%. Right now your argument is no nono they don't count because they know what they are doing.
Also please post these ships and their fittings which you will no longer be using a DCU on. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17446
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:46:07 -
[116] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:What's it like being that wrong? I don't know, you tell me. Until you hear an official statement from a Red Frog director, any sentence starting with "Red Frog says" is a moot point.
I get it from their annual reports. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:55:23 -
[117] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:I get it from their annual reports. ...and we've completed a full circle once again. Now if only this thread still contained all original messages.
Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 13:24:54 -
[118] - Quote
Darth Terona wrote: That all being said. Im looking forward to the change.
The only change is going be on ships that either didn't fit the mod and ships that cant. Which no matter how you look at it is by far the oddest change to date. It fails meet the goal set as all the ships that fit the mod are still going to want to fit it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 13:26:47 -
[119] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:baltec1 wrote:That comes from the facts I posted, the ones you continue to desperately ignore while providing none of your own. Don't worry, I feel no desperation at all. I am quite content with the changes CCP Fozzie and team have planned. As for commenting on your personal interpretation of statistics, we've been through this before. Alas, the messages got "misplaced", and I have the feeling our follow-ups are not long for this world either.
Not desperate but continually drags the thread off topic. Sure thing bud, if you are not to add anything then kindly leave. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 13:54:42 -
[120] - Quote
Crackforbreakfast wrote:What seems to be forgotten by the salty gankbro's in this thread pulling up 2014 RFF statistics is that the ganks are mostly happening in a very select few systems, the Niarja and Uedama pipes with the surrounding few systems because these are connecting the major trade hubs to one another.
The statistics of RFF2014 also include ALL of the other contracts not travelling through those gank choke-points (I'm not sure if gankbro's are just playing dumb or really don't understand this). Scouting will only help so much as the pipe consist of multiple jumps judging by the map, this means that a Mach could be waiting 3-4 jumps ahead while you get scanned down in the current system to see if you're worth ganking. This is furthermore hindered with the fact that Freighter warps are slow, multiple minutes on occasion, in that time a lot of relocating can be done by a Mach with it's warp speed increase bonus. Even if you have a webber, the fact you have to go multiple jumps through the pipe and can be caught up to means your webber can also be ganked.
What would be the solution gankbro's? Three scouts? Two webbers? So a total of six accounts to avoid 160mil worth of Catalysts that can kill you if they desire to do so while the risk free Machariel happily bumps you. Or would you need four Tornado accounts to alpha the Mach of the field to keep you safe?
Twisting the facts (or misinterpreting them purposefully would be a nicer wording) in regards to the safety of freighter pilots is not making you look like the sharpest tool in the shed so best to stop that.
My sincere apologies if you're not purposefully misinterpreting them and are actually not understanding how to read into them.
Both of those systems can be avoided or the risk in the reduced to virtually zero. All of my ships are bought in jita and pass through those systems and not once have I lost a shipment. Equally my industrial alt has never been ganked in said systems despite traveling through them twice a day, nearly every day. The reason RFF get use is because it is the single largest body of date available on freighter trips and the likelihood of failing a contract. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 14:16:35 -
[121] - Quote
Mazare Mircea wrote: All risk ? All of it ? You mean you can get a freighter into warp in under 1s, before the server tick ?
Golly, them webs are so powerfull to have.
Or is it that you want to say 'most risk' but can only see your argument in this discussion ?
3-5 seconds to get a freighter into warp. I have had my freighter for 4 years now, yes it might as well be perfectly safe. Same goes for blockade runners, fly them right and nothing can stop them.
Quote: Ppl were using Battleships because they got used to their EHP and slot layout. Had that nerf not come around, they would have switched to tier 3 battlecruisers eventually for a number of other factors.
they were used for their firepower, concord kills all ships equally fast no matter the tank fitted. They also provided a profit because you could insure them for more than it cost the build them.
Quote:The mod will in fact become less needed than it is now, as some ships that are in the extreme of shield or armor tanking might benefit more from other mods.
The mod will be 0.02% less effective than now, there will be no change.
Quote: As for what it breaks, it breaks no other ships and if anything, goons have proved it. If they can gank with t1 cats freighters in .9 and 1.0 with impunity, they can do so in .5/.6 ... it will just require a tad more 'effort'.
It was pointed out when freighters were balanced that allowing them to fit a DCU would overpower them because of the vast structure HP they have and the nature of bulkheads. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 15:11:02 -
[122] - Quote
Crackforbreakfast wrote:baltec1 wrote: Both of those systems can be avoided or the risk in the reduced to virtually zero. All of my ships are bought in jita and pass through those systems and not once have I lost a shipment. Equally my industrial alt has never been ganked in said systems despite traveling through them twice a day, nearly every day. The reason RFF get use is because it is the single largest body of date available on freighter trips and the likelihood of failing a contract. Both systems can not be avoided unless you're going through low-sec with your freighter, to get from Jita to Amarr you either have to go through Niarja, or go 40-ish jumps around and go through Uedama. ; see http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Amarr:-Niarja:-Uedama for reference, the same goes for Jita to Dodixie http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Dodixie:-Uedama:-Niarja, and thus also for Jita to Hek http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Hek:-Uedama:-Niarja. Also the fact you're "using" RFF data does not mean you're capable of interpreting it right, which leads me to believe you actually don't understand the previously made argument as to how you (and others) are misinterpreting the statistics. How about using the most recent and best updated source you can find on where these freighters actually die, regardless of if they're RFF freighters or not; https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/. Hard to deny the trend much? This does not include statistics on how many freighters pass through, but is merely to show that on these popular routes you WILL have to go through one of two systems, Niarja or Uedama, and at those points, have a fair chance of getting picked off. The fact is the more interesting freighters (ISK-wise) during times of activity be ganking groups are being picked off. (logically) However the current EHP of the freighters allows this to be done at such a low cost that the hull resistance buff will even it out a bit. You'll still have your easy life in regards that there are only two pipes for these major hubs, just have to be a bit pickier on what you decide to blap by pressing F1. Instead of 160 mil worth of Catalysts you might need 240mil worth of Catalysts, or just up your game and only go for the juicy targets using Talos if fielding that amount of players seems unmanageable.
Use a jump freighter.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 15:19:55 -
[123] - Quote
Quote: I will not take the 3-5s, but i will admit it's probably around 6s with reactions and all that.
It's 3-5 seconds depending how you are fitting you freighter. The only reason it's not 1 second is because you need to get the freighter up to 17.4m/s.
Quote: I said something different in that part of my post. I was referencing the fact that some ships (i was not thinking of freighters) will see an increase in EHP and will avoid the absolute requirement of sacrificing a lowslot for a damage control.
Usually it's the ships with too few low slots (caldari are a prime example) or the ships with too many low slots (amarr will be able to fit more damage).
If you fit a damage control now you will fit one after this change.
Quote: That was then, this is now..
The only thing that has changed between then and now is hyper dunking was removed entirely. Literally the only change was a change that made freighters even safer. The reasons for not allowing a DCU on freighters are still there. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 16:04:45 -
[124] - Quote
[/quote]I promise you 100% I won't.[/quote]
Still waiting on those fits. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:20:11 -
[125] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Opsec, vOv. Still waiting on you to prove that after this change 100% of the ships that used to have a DC still will. Basically if one dude (such as me) swaps out a single module on a single ship, you are wrong.
Thought as much, yet again you fail to back up anything you say and then have the gaul to demand I provide the data to show what you said is wrong. Tell me then why I would want to give up the DCU on my current ship of choice the purifier bomber? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:27:42 -
[126] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I don't know, your ship fitting choices are yours to make. All I'm saying is that I definitely will be removing the DC from at least a couple of ships, thus disproving your 100% theory.
Prove it, which fits. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:50:37 -
[127] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Seriously though, I'm not at home and if I were I have no interest in talking fits back and forth with you. But some ships which previously have just about qualified for a DC in my mind won't following the change. Whether EFT warriors can come up with better fits is pretty much irrelevant, the aim of the change is to give normal players a more varied choice, and reducing the effectiveness of the DC accomplishes that.
Ok I'll do it for you then.
Your ranis fit if you get rid of the DCU II and go with a EANM II you lose several hundred EHP.
Looking at the new Imperium mach you will lose around 10k EHP by doing the same.
Your FYF celestis is 2k ehp worse off if we go with the next best thing which is a 400mm plate.
Your Drake is also worse off without the DCU to the tune of over 10k ehp.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17447
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 18:41:23 -
[128] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Red Frog's own annual reports are not good enough? The "creative" interpretation is not good enough, which has been explained several times before.
The only people getting creative are the ones who think just two systems should count for the entirety of highsec. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17460
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 08:58:27 -
[129] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ok I'll do it for you then.
Your ranis fit if you get rid of the DCU II and go with a EANM II you lose several hundred EHP.
Looking at the new Imperium mach you will lose around 10k EHP by doing the same.
Your FYF celestis is 2k ehp worse off if we go with the next best thing which is a 400mm plate.
Your Drake is also worse off without the DCU to the tune of over 10k ehp. Again though, that's all great to EFT warrior, but the reality is that it will change how the average player chooses their fits. They will be less likely to choose the DC simply because it has less of an extreme effect.
This less of an extreme effect being 0.02% less than today. Feel free to not use the DCU but to say it's going to be less effective than today is just a lie. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17460
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 09:00:20 -
[130] - Quote
Crackforbreakfast wrote:Using a data set which is not valid in regards as to what is in question is beyond stupid, furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral. You can keep on rambling about your RFF data.
Zkill is showing the following: The majority of high-sec freighter kills happen in the pipes, that is what can be concluded from the data at hand. The fact that these systems are camped during high times of activity makes the chance RELATIVELY high to get ganked in a freighter. Especially since the costs of ganking one are so low.
Have fun keyboard warrioring in this thread regardless, and props to CCP for this re-balance.
How many freighters pass through your two sample systems unmolested? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17460
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 06:16:04 -
[131] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:This less of an extreme effect being 0.02% less than today. Feel free to not use the DCU but to say it's going to be less effective than today is just a lie. If it's 0.02% less effect then saying it's going to be less effective can't be a lie. Not really sure where you've got the 0.02% from but mate, you're still talking about EFT warrior fits where the only important factor is tank. Someone that removed a DC and decides that with the natural hull resist boost they are tanky enough to instead increase another stat will be the types of players who will drop it. I'm really not sure what you are hoping to achieve here anyway. Would you say that perhaps CCP should drop of some more of the DCs effects and naturally add those to all ships too? I'm game for that.
These are the ships and fits that YOU currently use. You said you wont be fitting the DCU because they are not as effective, I just showed what you said was wrong. Perhaps if you spent more time looking at this change rather than blindly supporting what you see as a nerf to ganking you would have seen that this change does nothing to lower the importance of the DCU. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17460
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 06:44:16 -
[132] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:As somebody who found their empty freighter being bumped by CODE. I have to disagree. They go for ransom in those cases. It may not be common, but it does happen. Of course, but there is already a huge financial disincentive when they gank an empty freighter. People get blinded by that billion ISK number on the killmail, but if the freighter was empty, the gankers get nothing and lose hundreds of millions in gank ships. So while they will bump any freighter than can catch, they don't usually shoot the empty ones, and rather will try a ransom or just let them go when something with more cargo comes along. The only time they do shoot them is when they have a restless gank fleet sitting in station and no other target is available. Or if they are Miniluv and they have intel you are working for a red. In both cases, an extra hundred million will be swallowed as the cost of doing business and that empty freighter will still explode.
Other way around in my book. The people who gank for profit are hardest hit as this raises the bar for making a profit which means the have to target bigger cargo which means fewer targets for them. CODE operate very differently, the operate on donations and don't pick targets based upon profit. CODE will continue as they do now in the same way they operate in barge ganking which is more like a terrorist organisation. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 08:06:20 -
[133] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:These are the ships and fits that YOU currently use. You said you wont be fitting the DCU because they are not as effective, I just showed what you said was wrong. Perhaps if you spent more time looking at this change rather than blindly supporting what you see as a nerf to ganking you would have seen that this change does nothing to lower the importance of the DCU. But it will be not as effective. They are reducing all of the DCs stats, therefore it will be less effective than it was. What you are saying is "If your only goal is to maximise defense, then the DC will still be needed" which I'm sure is true, except most people don't build normal ships solely with defense in mind, otherwise noone would ever fit offensive midslots, they'd all add shield tank. With a base increase to hull, many ships will have enough tank that the removal of the DC and replacement with a prop mod or damage/yield mod will be a viable option. Stop looking solely at EHP and perhaps you'd understand this.
If you replace the DCU on your ranis with a damage mod you reduce your ehp by 1/3. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 10:56:26 -
[134] - Quote
The only cherry picking going on here is from you Lucas. The RFF stats cover every jump in all of highsec and all losses they incurred. Equally yes the game must be balanced on what the best players can do. Why else do you think boomerang and hyper dunking was nerfed? Why else do you think FW was massively nerfed when 10 players figured out how to make trillions of isk a weekend out of it? The reason you want the RFF stats to go away is because it flies in the face of your hollow argument.
Just like with your DCU argument your opinions are being shown to be wrong and you don't like that. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 11:07:01 -
[135] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:The reason you want the RFF stats to go away is because it flies in the face of your hollow argument. I don;t want RFF stats to go away, I just don't want them treated as stats that say something they don't. They don't represent hauler safety, the represent gankers choices. If they were the only choices they would lose vastly more ships, and you know it.
And where is the evidence for that? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 11:33:13 -
[136] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You got me, I don't have buckets of stats for a hypothetical situation. That's why facts trump opinions. On our side we have mountains of evidence from multiple sources that show the risk of being ganked is incredibly low if you take steps to protect yourself, on your side you have nothing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 12:45:51 -
[137] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except it's not though. You've got partial stats, which you are extrapolating to cover players it does not cover RFF are a freighter organisation. We are talking about freighters. Feel free to tell us all why a freighter organisation does cover the use of freighters.
Quote: , then you're ignoring things we know are facts and we don't need statistics to prove, such as there being no way to make a freighter ungankable.
There shouldn't be a way to make freighters ungankable.
Quote: The only reason you're even demanding stats and claiming stats trump facts is becuase you know they can't be provided.
I demand evidence to back up any argument. That you have never supplied any is rather telling.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 12:58:14 -
[138] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It covers some of the use of freighters.
This should be fun.
What do RFF have access to that everyone else does not? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 13:06:22 -
[139] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It covers some of the use of freighters. This should be fun. What do RFF have access to that everyone else does not? The existence of dumb pilots as a meat shield. If everyone were playing the the same way RFF were playing, they would get ganked at a higher rate than RFF currently enjoy. I don;t believe RFFs stats are representative of haluer gank risk, I believe it's representative of what haluer gank risk would be if you were almost never selected as a target in the first place.
We just want over this. Your opinion has no basis in fact as there is zero evidence that this either will happen, has happened or can happen. The fact remains, using the ships, mods, tactics and mechanics available to everyone you can get 99.9% safety over 2.7 million gate jumps in highsec. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 14:52:40 -
[140] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:We just went over this. Your opinion has no basis in fact as there is zero evidence that this either will happen, has happened or can happen. The fact remains, using the ships, mods, tactics and mechanics available to everyone you can get 99.9% safety over 2.7 million gate jumps in highsec. Again though, only if other players are being ganked instead. Your applying a limited dataset to a wider group of players which simply doesn't work. You know full well that their level of safety is not solely based on their actions, but their relative level of difficulty and value vs other freighters.
So you agree their actions make them safer. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17461
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 15:34:02 -
[141] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Absolutely, I just don't believe those actions alone are what contribute to their safety and I certainly don't believe that it's representative of the risk of hauler ganking overall.
There is zero evidence for this though. What we see is if you use the tools ccp have given us you can make yourself 99.9% safe. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17464
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 17:07:07 -
[142] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Seriously, I'm not going to continue this cycle forever. I don;t know if you legitimately don't understand how stats for one group can;t be arbitrarily applied to the general population or if you are being deliberately obtuse and to be quite honest, I don;t care. The change is still coming, it's still a good thing for haulers to be be buffed and ganking to be nerfed, I hope to see more ganking nerfs in the future as I still thinks it's far too easy and you'll just have to learn to adapt or find something else to do.
So that would be a no then, you don't have a better group to view.
Now that you dug a hole for yourself so deep not even jacks beanstalk cant get you out lets get back to the original topic you tried to weasel out of. What ship that currently fits a DCU is going to want to not fit a DCU after this change given the DCU is going to be just as powerful as today. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17466
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 19:05:15 -
[143] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:So that would be a no then, you don't have a better group to view.
Now that you dug a hole for yourself so deep not even jacks beanstalk can get you out lets get back to the original topic you tried to weasel out of. What ship that currently fits a DCU is going to want to not fit a DCU after this change given the DCU is going to be just as powerful as today. Loads. You claim there are none, so prove it. Provide me with a list of every ship in the game, every fit and every use, and prove that not one of them benefits from losing a DC. At the end of the day, you;re the one making the wild claim that this has no effect, so you can't then demand I prove it, that burden is on you.
Don't have to, just need to look at the stats of the new mod.
After we take into account the 33% resists added to ships we can see that the new DCU II will get 12.5% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure. End result is... the same as we have now.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17466
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 20:02:49 -
[144] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Not really though, is it. .
Yes it is, its right ******* there. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17467
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 20:41:40 -
[145] - Quote
The Ginger Sith wrote:
you need to learn how the hull resist from a damage control is even applied i don't have the exact math but the 33% and the 40% will not add up to 73% it will prolly be under the current 60% we get now. One example is when a marauder uses a damage control with bastion you do not get 30% + 60% instead of 90% you get something closer to 72%. some ships for some tasks will in many cases be better offer swapping the DCU II out for something that the pilot was already considering anyway. sure a vast majority of ships will still be using the DCU with very little change except a slight decrease in their hull ehp since the shield/armor portion isnt changing.
Its adds up to ever so slightly less than today. Not enough to make any real difference.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17467
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 21:27:27 -
[146] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Not really though, is it. . Yes it is, its right ******* there in the OP. Go look, right now and you will see that mod as I just described in that list. I have even taken the time to show you what this change would mean for the ships that you fly. Yes, but it's not "the same". The whole point is that the module does less and the ship naturally does some of it some the end result of a ship using the module is the same but the necessity to use the module is lessened. That would seem to be the case. You appear to believe that more should be taken from the module and added to the ship to make it less used, which is fair enough. How about rather than foaming at the mouth you offer a suggestion on what you think would be suitable for achieving what they want to achieve.
See sums above. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17467
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 17:05:54 -
[147] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. LOL, yes, let's not compare the loss rates with anything, let's just say how many freighters are killed and then say "that's low because I said it is". Comparing capital ships to other capital ships of similar price isn't even bad. If I were to compare them to loss rates of titans for example then it would be apples to oranges, this is more like comparing granny smiths to golden delicious.
Ratting carriers have nothing in common with freighters. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17468
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 17:34:03 -
[148] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:the hypothetical situation on which baltec believes the game should be balanced
Lets stop this bullshit right now.
I said nothing hypothetical, I showed what level safety is achievable using the current mechanics. There is nothing hypothetical and I did not say what you are trying to pin on me. This whole " if everyone flies this way" argument was made entirely by you not me. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17468
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 17:57:39 -
[149] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Note these are POST PATCH numbers from the OP. Maybe on the test server they have different numbers which could give you a different answer, but that formula is the correct one.
They have yet to be changed on the test server. DCU II as of right now on singularity is still 60% structure bonus. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17468
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 18:40:48 -
[150] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Thank you for supporting my exact point. It will never happen, which is why game mechanics should be balanced around normal players, not just the players with the highest ability.
That is an incredibly dumb way to balance things. Again, under your plan the FW farming that could earn you trillion of isk over the span of a single weekend would have been left in game because only a handful were doing it. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17468
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 18:59:23 -
[151] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:That is an incredibly dumb way to balance things. Again, under your plan the FW farming that could earn you trillion of isk over the span of a single weekend would have been left in game because only a handful were doing it. Obvious overpowered stuff aside, that's exactly how it is and should be balanced. If you balance it based on only the top players then the vast majority of your playerbase can't accomplish anything and quits. Instead you balance based on the average, the top tier player gets to roll around in isk while your average player feels a constant sense of accomplishment for doing everyday stuff. Also, in context with this change, remember that most gankers involved in freighter ganks are F1 pressing monkeys that struggle to turn their safety off. Reducing hauler safety is making their day easier too, so balancing against the top tier players on one side is helping the bottom tier players on the opposing side. Again +1 for balancing the averages.
And yet here you are demanding nerfs to a ganking activity done by just two or three groups. Oh the irony. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17469
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:21:44 -
[152] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not demanding anything. You are always demanding more and more nerfs, your hatred of ganking is well known.
Lucas Kell wrote: Nerfs are coming and I've said "yep, sounds fine". how many groups choose to take part in the activity is not particularly relevant, but ask yourself, is it just two or 3 groups because it's super hard and goons of all people are some of the only ones capable of doing it, or is it that it's dull, F1 monkey gameplay and people actively choose to do something more entertaining with their time?
So you have gone from "balance should be done with the poor quality players not at the level of the best" to "balance should be done according to what the top players can do" In a matter of a handful of posts. All of your arguments are nonsensical, lack any evidence to back them up and far too many are outright lies.
Why are you even here? You have zero interest in the DCU and all of your posts are all to do with defending a nerf to ganking. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17469
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 21:10:13 -
[153] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Ed: Also you completely skipped over the part where if you consider opportunity cost to be relevant, then hauling is always isk negative, therefore in dire need of a buff.
RFF makes over 5 trillion a year. Guy I know in Black Freight makes minimum of 15 billion a month up to 37 billion. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17469
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 21:22:12 -
[154] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Ed: Also you completely skipped over the part where if you consider opportunity cost to be relevant, then hauling is always isk negative, therefore in dire need of a buff.
RFF makes over 2.4 trillion a year. Guy I know in Black Freight makes minimum of 15 billion a month up to 37 billion. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17471
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 01:26:27 -
[155] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: Ed: Also you completely skipped over the part where if you consider opportunity cost to be relevant, then hauling is always isk negative, therefore in dire need of a buff.
RFF makes over 2.4 trillion a year. Guy I know in Black Freight makes minimum of 15 billion a month up to 37 billion. Spending how long on how many characters? Also, black frog deals with low/null JF hauling right? Doubt he'd be making that hauling in highsec.
More than negative thats for damn sure. I'm sorry but what you said is just an outright lie. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17471
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 01:29:04 -
[156] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ganking even low value freighters is already profitable and still will be with a small increase in cost.
Adding the EHP of a charon to the tank of the obelisk is not a small increase in cost. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17471
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 01:53:01 -
[157] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
What part exactly is the lie?
The part where you said hauling is negative isk, this isn't hard.
Lucas Kell wrote:It is though, isn't it.
No it is not. Its is adding 157,000 EHP to the obelisk. That is a staggeringly massive change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17472
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:03:47 -
[158] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If we're counting opportunity cost, then highsec hauling is.
If we are going to follow this line of fudging numbers then ganking is in a far worse position.
Lucas Kell wrote:No it's not, it's am minor change. It's only a massive change if EHP is the only factor in defense, which it's not. EHP is a minor factor in itself.
What world do you live in? 157,000 more EHP on ANYTHING is a massive buff. We are talking about a freighter getting the tank of another freighter added to its already massive tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17472
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:35:02 -
[159] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I'm sure if we were fudging numbers they'd be in whatever position you wanted them to be in. let's stick with reality though where opportunity cost is irrelevant and this change is coming no matter how much you cry about having to put in a little more effort.
Funny how every argument you have made so far has ended with you saying its irrelevant when it was pointed out you were wrong.
Lucas Kell wrote: I'm in the real world, where the EHP of a freighter is a minor factor when ganking them. If they were making freighters enter warp twice as fast, I'd see that as a pretty serious buff. EHP is just an increase in cost, and since it's cheap to begin with, it's not even that costly an increase.
To gank an obelisk in 0.6 space will cost 1.25 billion more in talos. That is also not a small number. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17472
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:52:21 -
[160] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I'm sure it would cost billions more if you try to gank it with rattlesnakes too, but then again there's catalysts where it will cost less than 100m too. What you're saying is that you can choose to make it more expensive to varying degrees. Choice, in a video game! Great!
You cant gank it with 100 mil of catalysts. Equally expecting people to form up 100 people is unrealistic. Which goes to show that this change in EHP is not a "small change" like you keep on trying to push which I will once again say, is a blatant lie. A lie just like when you said hauling is isk negetive, when you lied about the DCU not being as powerful after this change, when you say there is no defence against ganking and every time to outright refuse to accepty that literally no evidence backs up anything you have said thus far in this thread. You are a pathological lair hell bent on removing an entire playstyle from eve no matter how damaging the change is |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17475
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 20:29:56 -
[161] - Quote
Jaantrag wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes...add more people or better ships...but that is no as simple as you make out to be. Adding people means longer form up times. Adding better ships means you need fatter targets. Both mean less ganking.
ganking been the same for a long time .. was about time for a little change .. less ganing .. i seriously doupt that ...
If you are ganking for profit, and nearly every ganker does, if you have to spend 1.25 billion more to gank freighters that means You have to chose targets with at the very least 1.25 billion more in the hold. That right there reduces the number of viable targets and thus, less ganks are made. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17475
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 20:35:17 -
[162] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except I'm not, what I'm saying is that like every other player in the game you have a choice between manpower and asset power.
Thats not choosing thats having something force upon you. Every single small group out there is getting hit hard by this change.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except it is.
Again bullshit. Point out to me in what world 157,000 ehp is a small amount.
Lucas Kell wrote:]Oh good lord, the irony. I'm not even remotely pushing for the removal of ganking, I'd just rather see balance and I've made that clear on multiple occasions, so I'm really not the liar here.
You saing that and it being true are two very very different things. You are well known round here for your years of nerf calls. Its never going to be enough for you and you have zero interest in balance. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17475
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 22:03:34 -
[163] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Again though, only assuming that all the people who already fly dumb enough to be gankable after the change are currently being ganked. But maybe ganking will go down maybe ganking will go up, or maybe it will remain the same.
There is no maybe about this. To turn a profit you have to target more expensive cargo of which there are fewer targets. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17475
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 22:14:11 -
[164] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Less targets, yes, less ganking, no.
Well there's a prime example of retardation right there. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17477
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 00:51:40 -
[165] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Less targets, yes, less ganking, no. Well there's a prime example of retardation right there. Only if basic logic is not your thing. I've explained in the simplest possible terms why that's the case, and rather than provide a reason for why you think that's wrong, you've gone with lobbing a personal attack. Good job buddy!
I spent a good 20 odd pages trying to be kind to you but you just cant understand anything that doesn't conform to your opinion. Again to date you have absolutely nothing to back up anything you say in any of your arguments. All you have done is ignore everything that doesn't fit with your goals, you are the worst kind of person to have in feedback threads. Frankly I have had enough of your stupidity. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17483
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 05:17:45 -
[166] - Quote
Lets try this one last time.
The goal of this change is to make the DCU less of a must have mod. After these changes the mod is going to be just as powerful as todays mod with several faction mods providing an even greater effect than today. This means the primary goal of this change has not been met. We also see several side effects because of the planned 33% buff to native structure resists all of which are simply not asked for. Infact the only change that is happening is the ships that either did not fit or could not fit a DCU are getting buffed. Ships such as comet, hecate and other gallente boats that have no need to be buffed are getting one. The marauders are getting a buff they dont need due to bastion. Freighters are getting an enormous buff despite the fact they cant fit the DCU in the first place. This change is going to buff a lot of ships that dont need it while not having any impact on its intended target. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17485
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 10:31:24 -
[167] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Pretty much nails it. Not forgetting that the passive switch is a odd move; why? All that will do is immunize them from capacitor warfare and make AFK even easier and more appealing.
I'm 50/50 on the passive change. On the one hand its handy on the other a mod as powerful as the DCU should really come with some kind of cap warfare weakness and should not benefit afk play. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17485
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 12:37:54 -
[168] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And it will be, woohoo! You can;t deny that the DC on itself will give less benefit, therefore will be less of a must-have mod. What you are saying is that the change isn't big enough, so once again I say, rather than keep repeating over and over that it's bad, suggest how it should be instead.
There is no change, stop lying. DCU after this change loses none of its power, every ship that fits it today will fit it after this change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17485
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 17:52:59 -
[169] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I guarantee you are wrong, since I know for a fact I won;t have it on some ships.
What ships? I went over all the ships you fly and all of them are worse off without the DCU.
Lucas Kell wrote: I know you would then pull out EFT and say "you can get more defense with X" but since defense isn't the only relevant stat, that's meaningless.
Why do you fit them now?
Lucas Kell wrote: Some fits you can remove the DC, take less of a defense hit than you used to and add to other attributes.
Name them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17485
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 18:16:02 -
[170] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Hecate abs plenty of gallente ships currently fit dcu marauders use dcu I have very few pall fits without one and with options for more armor resists that won't change
In the case of marauders we have the problem of a lot of bonuses. 33% to structure, 30% bonus with bastion and the 40% - 47.50% from the DCU after this change. Same goes with the hecate (all t3d get this effect but because the hecate is gallente it gets a much bigger buff). Gal ships as a whole are getting a bigger buff out of this than the other factions. When looking at the more expensive huls which people will bling with faction mods all this change is going to do is make the DCU even more needed than today because it will be providing even more tank.
There are a few glass cannon setups out there that are getting a good buff that just don't need it. I mean, when was the last time anyone said the insta nado needed a buff? The fragile nature of the ship is what balances it. This whole change just causes so many issues and doesn't even fix the thing it is supposed to fix. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17486
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 18:37:04 -
[171] - Quote
If CCP truly want to stop the DCU from being a must have mod then they need to nerf it not in structure but in the shield and armour bonuses it gives. Take away the armour and shield bonus, convert all current DCU mods into a dedicated hull omni resist mod and reduce the T2 bonuses down to 50%. Add in a range of new DCU/hull mods that provide EM, Explosive, Kinetic and Thermal bonus of 37.5%.
This will remove the need to fit the DCU on all ships like today and provide a big buff to hull tanking. Yes this is a nerf to everyone that currently fits a DCU but if CCP want the DCU to stop being a must have mod we are going to have to take the pain but at least this way we are going to buff a neglected form of tank that have never really been a viable option on anything but freighters and the bait brutix.
(numbers are just an example and would be different if implemented, keep in mind they need to take into account the lack of resists in structure). |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17486
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 20:08:24 -
[172] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:...What worries me about freighters getting this is it may make the gal line to strong they already carry the second most and have the best tank for low isk after this change I'm worried the amarr line will no longer have a strong reason to be flown.. Me too! I have a solution to remidy that, let CCP just remove 3 lowslots, 450 powergrid and 200 cpu from all gallente ships and all will be okay.
Oh you! |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17487
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 17:25:28 -
[173] - Quote
I would like to point out that I went over every ship Lucas has flown this year and not just the imperium doctrines. All of them were worse off without the DCU. His favourite ship this month will be worse off to the tune of having 1/3 less ehp. The reason why Lucas won't post any fits to back himself up is simple, he can't. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17488
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 19:16:00 -
[174] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:I would like to point out that I went over every ship Lucas has flown this year and not just the imperium doctrines. All of them were worse off without the DCU. His favourite ship this month will be worse off to the tune of having 1/3 less ehp. The reason why Lucas won't post any fits to back himself up is simple, he can't. What that mean to me is that ships have too much structure HP when a single mod can be that valuable...
The 12.5% to shields and 15% to armour both help greatly so its not just the 40% to structure. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17489
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 00:48:08 -
[175] - Quote
Mag's wrote:It's not that I didn't do my homework, it's that the dog ate it.
True story.
Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp isn't going to cripple him or that he thinks "eft warroring" isn't required in a thread asking for feedback on a ship mod change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17490
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 10:45:46 -
[176] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp isn't going to cripple him It's not, and this shows how incredibly dishonest you are being. Ah well, i you don;t want to make valid points, I'm not going to force you. Enjoy the buff!
You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17494
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 16:57:18 -
[177] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Once again, only if you are talking about a fleet of ships, the same ship in fact. A battleship without a DC isn't going to have 1/3 less EHP than a frigate. Again you are only thinking about a small subset of ship fits and uses.
Ok battleships it is.
Solo armageddon loses 23.5% in EHP
Baltec fleet mega loses 15.6% in EHP
Imperium Mach fit loses 14.7% in EHP
Raven loses 22.7% in EHP
Solo rattle loses 17.4% in EHP
Of note, shield ships would suffer the most it seems if they forgo the DCU with armour ships not able to match the ehp with any other mod and any damage or tracking increase is far below the advantage given by the DCU.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17494
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 17:42:20 -
[178] - Quote
Ok so I'm getting 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure on the DCU II. Combined with the buff to the hull its nets me 61% structure resists.
CCP buffed the DCU, its more of a must have mod now than ever. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17495
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 18:24:07 -
[179] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
1% difference, everyone break out the pitchforks!
rabble, rabble, grrr CCP, grr freighters
/s
this thread... priceless
The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17495
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 18:51:52 -
[180] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
There are a few ships i don't put DCU's on, this doesn't really change that. A kiting vagabond is a great example of this. If you're brawling, almost every fit is going to have a DCU. Kiting fits that use a DCU before may not use them after (even with the enormous 1% hull resist gain), as they mainly use a DCU to have some kind of hull resist to not bleed structure, or to supplement shield/armor resistances. Now they put in an eanm or another armor resist mod in since they have 33% base hull buffer to work with instead of 0%.
They may find now with the 33% base resist, that they would like to add a TE, more damage/resist etc instead of the DCU. I don't see how this makes it a "must have" mod when what the DCU change is providing already gives some room to adjust fits as needed.
DCU adds more to a ships tank than any other mod you can fit. The same reasons we all fit it now still apply. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 20:25:51 -
[181] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:The goal is to make it less of a must have mod, making it better than before to fit one does not exactly help to meet that goal. It is, since the module does less. How are you still not getting that?
What part of "its better than what its replacing" do you not understand?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 21:35:41 -
[182] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What part of "the module does less" do you not understand?
And where is that?
Again, after this change the DCU provides slightly more tank than you get today, no other module will provide a better alternative and no damage mod is worth fitting over the DCU. The DCU is just as needed after the change as before, thus the whole change fails to do what it is supposed to do. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 21:59:22 -
[183] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: And where is that?
Please post the before & after stats of the DCU II. Ignore any other changes, just the DCU II stats. Then explain how the DCU II is now giving more than it used to give.
Due to the way things in EVE work the DCU II after this change will boost your ship with 13% shields, 15% armour and 61% structure resists. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 22:09:11 -
[184] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Due to the way things in EVE work the DCU II after this change will boost your ship with 13% shields, 15% armour and 61% structure resists.
No it won't. That will be the END result. Not the boost that the DCU II gives itself. You are stacking two separate effects together for your claims.
The END result is we keep doing what we are currently doing. After this change we will still be using the DCU on all the ships that currently fit the DCU. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 22:53:06 -
[185] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: And? That is irrelevant to your claims that the module itself provides a larger bonus than it used to, which is an outright lie. The module provides a smaller bonus.
If the module has been nerfed enough to make a noticeable difference in how many people use it is irrelevant to the question of if it has been nerfed at all. And the module has certainly been nerfed.
You just are doing your normal thing, of cherry picking statistics and ignoring or flat out lying about everything else. And it's seriously old now.
So now its a personal vendetta just to try and "get me"?
I am looking at this change as a whole and what it means. Fitting the DCU on any ship will give you those resists, thats why I am lumping them together. Every single ship that fits a DCU will get 61% hull resists which is slightly more than what is available today. That is the point I am making.
If you just want to concentrate on the DCU then its still a must have mod, no ship that fits them today will not fit them in the future. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.01 23:20:41 -
[186] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: So now its a personal vendetta just to try and "get me"?
I am looking at this change as a whole and what it means. Fitting the DCU on any ship will give you those resists, thats why I am lumping them together. Every single ship that fits a DCU will get 61% hull resists which is slightly more than what is available today. That is the point I am making.
If you just want to concentrate on the DCU then its still a must have mod, no ship that fits them today will not fit them in the future.
Yes, it's a personal vendetta to call you out for constant outright lies..... No it's not a personal vendetta. It's calling you out for outright lies, which you constantly peddle on the forums to mislead people. You were replying directly to someone talking about purely the DCU making claims that the DCU Module has been buffed. It hasn't, the module has been nerfed. It's irrelevant what the end result is with regards to how 'must fit' the module is. Only what the module stats are. Could they nerf the DCU even further for good balance, almost certainly, I'd love to see it become hull resists only with 0% for armour & shield, but have they nerfed it for now? Also absolutely. It's just a debate on how much of a nerf is needed and desirable, not if it's been nerfed at all.
After this change, as a whole, we will get more.
It was said that this change would result in slightly less than today, not a lot to make any difference. Turns out this is a buff to what we have today, slightly more but not enough to make any difference. The reality is that nothing will change for DCU fitted ships. You seem to have missed the context of this discussion |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 09:39:57 -
[187] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Moving goalposts argument played by Baltec completes the set!
Ok so I'm getting 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure on the DCU II. Combined with the buff to the hull its nets me 61% structure resists.
CCP buffed the DCU, its more of a must have mod now than ever.
That is what I said. Please stop trying to attribute an argument to me that I never made. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17496
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 12:21:33 -
[188] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Except it's NOT A BUFF. .
What happens when we fit a DCU
Pre changes 12.5% shields, 15% armour, 60% structure.
Post changes 13% shields, 15% armour, 61% structure.
It doesn't matter that the 34% of the hull comes from the buff to the ship because that is part of this change and you must take that into account in the final result. You cannot just look at the DCU because that is only one part of the picture in a larger change. You are trying to argue a technicality. Yes, the DCU lost 20% to the structure bonus but when you combine the DCU with the added structure resists you come out with slightly better resists when you fit the DCU as opposed to today. Lucas was trying to argue that fitting a DCU post change would not net you the same as what you have today. No goalpsts were moved, you just joined in mid way though Lucas trying to spin his way out of an argument he had lost.
The DCU nerf is a nerf that hasn't really happened, by baking part of the resits into the hulls themselves all CCP has done is buff every ship that either didn't fit or could not fit a DCU. The ships that actually do fit the DCU are going to see at worst no change and at best a slight increase. That is until we get to the faction and officer DCU's which will provide better results than we see today.
So end result of this is nothing changes for any ship that fits a DCU today, ships that dont fit a DCU (pve boats, miners, haulers, specialized pvp ships) they will see a buff of 34% to their structure and ships cant fit the DCU at all will see 34% added. This fails the original goal of making the DCU less of a must have mod. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17497
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 16:22:21 -
[189] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Of course it does when you're considering the appeal of the DCU. The DCU does less therefore has less appeal. No matter what way you spin it, that is the reality.
The DCU is still the best mod to fit. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17498
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 16:38:36 -
[190] - Quote
As you have been shown many times nothing you can fit in that slot will out preform a DCU. Hence why even you fit them on all of your combat ships. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17498
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 18:13:55 -
[191] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Oh does it now? OK, explain to me how a DCU outperforms an overdrive if I want my ship to go faster. Again, you are only ever looking at EHP. I don't fit a DCU on all my combat ships, far from it, and after this change I'll be removing it from some of my PVE ships too.
PVE ships dont tend to fit them anyway and that overdrive isnt going to help you from having a noticeably weaker tank than any of your enemies in a likewise ship. All that overdrive is going to do is let you piledrive into an enemy faster and then die. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17498
|
Posted - 2016.03.02 19:32:54 -
[192] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Faster ships always die?
They tend to when you randomly stick an overdrive on it rather than fit tanking mods.
Lucas Kell wrote: Seriously, the point is that unless you only care about EHP, choices vary, and now will vary slightly more. Every single argument you have about it comes back to "but you have less EHP" which everyone knows but isn't the only factor if you care about other stats too.
And yet everyone fits them today. They provide the same advantage after this change as they do today, if you fit it now you will be fitting it after this change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17498
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 12:48:05 -
[193] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Said no fleet FC, ever. My bad, I forgot that everyone flies in a fleet with an FC under a doctrine and that not a single player chooses their own fits for any activity in the game.
You putting together shitfits doesnt change the fact that damn near every ship fits the DCU now and all of them will continue to fit the DCU after this change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17498
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 13:30:25 -
[194] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Except they won't. I know for a fact that some ships will not fit the DC afterwards since I will be removing the DC from some of my ships, thus you are categorically wrong. And we're not talking about people fitting shitfits, just people who don't fit in exactly the same way you do. vOv
Is it any wonder that your complaints about the change are ignored when you make clear and obvious fabrications instead of realistic arguments?
Enjoy the buff!
Which ships and fits are you going to take them off? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 19:31:21 -
[195] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jin Kugu wrote:Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?
The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that. It's not though, so there's that.
Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 00:39:37 -
[196] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Jin Kugu wrote:Maybe that's because the damage control changes are mostly a zero sum game?
The only thing that is changing significantly is ganking so we're going to discuss that. It's not though, so there's that. Its about the only thing that's changing. DCU will still be used on every ship that currently fits them with the same end result, the biggest change is to ganking simply because the freighters are getting a massive boost in EHP. Except the fitting requirements are increased significantly (including the other changes), hence a lot of fits won't work anymore ...
If you cant fit the IFFA and absolutely need that 3 CPU you lost then you can get that CPU back by replacing your point with the civilian warp scrambler. I'm doing that with my bomber fit as it allows me to squeeze either a bomb launcher on or upgrade to t2 torps. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 11:05:54 -
[197] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:I like the changes a lot. The buff to freighters is needed since it became a lot easier and cheaper to maintain ganking alts with the skill extractor system.
I don't see how that helps gankers any more than anyone else.
Seth Kanan wrote: I would also like to see a counterplay for freighter-pilots who are actively piloting in highsec. It became ridiculously easy to gank and there is no way to fight back or to escape.
There are a lot of mods, skills and tactics already available that will reduce your chance of being ganked to 0.1% over 2.7 million jumps.
In the end, this is a change that is supposed to reduce the "must have" need of the DCU on almost every ship fit out there. This change doesn't do that, every ship that fits a DCU will still want to fit a DCU. The byproduct of buffing the hull on every ship is also going to have a huge impact on freighters which don't need such a huge buff to their tank. Its a bad change that does nothing to fix the problem its supposed to fix and impacts a totally different area greatly.
If CCP want to reduce the need to fit a DCU then they have to attack the shield and armour bonuses not the structure bonus. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 18:11:23 -
[198] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:
There may be different tactics and mods to cope with highsec ganking - usually proposed by the gankers themselves. They are just really unhandy and therefore useless.
Web alt/corpmate gets a freighter into warp in 3-5 seconds, hardly useless.
Seth Kanan wrote: I want to see real counterplay. That is what we expect from a computer game and its mechanics. And putting in some fake numbers, like you did, does not help the case.
We have real counterplay and those numbers are from the largest freighter organisation in EVE.
Seth Kanan wrote: I think that CCP, once again, was able to find an elegant solution to multiple problems by changing the dcu. They lowered the need to fit a dcu. Saying that every former fit with a dcu will keep it, is just wrong. I'm pretty sure people are working over their fits as we speak.
We went through this multiple times. The DCU is still the best mod to fit in the low slot providing the exact same end result as before this patch. The addition of faction and officer mods also mean they are more wanted than ever. There is nothing elegant about this change, it fails its primary goal and is having a large impact on ships that cant even fit the DCU. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17505
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 22:34:19 -
[199] - Quote
bubee Olacar wrote:I am a newbro I don't fly a freighter or gank but I don't understand the complaints by the gank side of the equation. Pre patch lets say it took 20 catalysts and now it takes 30 catalysts to gank a particular freighter. since it seems like it's a 50% EHP buff according some math on this post.
The Obelisk is getting up to 157,000 more EHP out of this change which is effectively adding a cargo expanded charons tank.
bubee Olacar wrote: base price of a freighter hull is 1.2Bil plus whatever cargo he is carrying another 1-xx billion.
And a marauder costs a bit more yet can be ganked with a fraction of the catalysts. Isk cost of the target hull has no baring on the cost to gank it.
bubee Olacar wrote: If this was such a buff to freighters that the gank team has to loose 20mil more in ships for a multi billion isk gank who cares?
1.6 billion is taloses in 0.7 space.
bubee Olacar wrote: I think the buff really needed is making repeated bumping an aggressive act. It seems illogical than one pilot can bump another forever waiting for the gank team to put down what they are doing
That is only possible if the victim does nothing to protect themselves. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17506
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 11:18:21 -
[200] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:
Thats what i ment when i say the tactics against ganking are unhandy and useless. Do you really expect people to get a webbing alt or a corpmate for highsec hauling? Do we really want to do that to these people? Imagine something like hauling in highsec (!) needs two accounts to do it - thats ridiculous.
Asking you to fly with one person is ridiculous yet gankers needing 25-40 BC pilots plus support ships to gank a freighter is not?
Seth Kanan wrote: There is no counterplay. There is no risk vs. reward. This buff to the hull of every ship is very important. I like how you try to gain legitimacy by refering your numbers to some dubious freighter organisation. So yeah, lets go with that.
Red freight, the largest and most popular freight organisation in EVE is now a dubious organisation?
Seth Kanan wrote: I understand when people say the changes are cautious and could be more drastic. But then again - how do you change a mod that is loved and used by so many? Cautiously of course. The decisions made are very reasonable and there is still room for tweaking. There is also new room to move for the tight fits with the new tiericide of the meta modules.
The two resists that matter are unchanged and with the addition of the faction and officer mods even better than before. Titans just got more tank, do you honestly think that was needed? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17507
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 14:52:06 -
[201] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:
It should be 25-40 battlecruisers minimun to gank. Before it was like 20-30 destroyers, which is nothing.
And it should require more than one freighter pilot to counter the work of all of those pilots.
Seth Kanan wrote: It got so easy to maintain ganking alts with the new skill extractor system. Keep in mind that a single pilot hauling his stuff looses billions of assets with the attacker having zero risk.
Ships loss, kill rights, 50% chance of the cargo being destroyed, theft, counter ganks, logi, ecm, smartbombs, web alts and so on. Ganking is the single most punished and risky activity in eve simply because of all the mechanics in place.
Seth Kanan wrote:Talking about Red Frog: Watching their presentation at Fanfest 2015 gives a hint how one is able come up with some distorting numbers about ganking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21LwbnDI2JE It gets really interesting when the guy from Red Freight talks about how their pilots are doing: http://snag.gy/06iNQ.jpg The hauling business not only sucks, even a big corporation like Red Frog who could afford the ressources to counter ganking are not doing that at all.
Why would they do anything outside of protect their own interests? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17507
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:14:46 -
[202] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What you call "silly snowflake fits" are simply fits you wouldn't choose though.
We won't choose them because it will die every time to ships that are fitting a DCU.
Until you post this magical fit you are simply going to be called a lair. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17508
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:27:38 -
[203] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Wait, you think ship balancing is about anything else other than PvP? Of course. Balance passes affect everyone. It's funny to see that your only response is to attack and ridicule. You know why that is? Because your arguments are weak.
Name a pve ship that relys upon a structure tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17508
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:32:42 -
[204] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:I disagree. Counterplay should not force a hauler to have multiple accounts.
And yet you demand gankers to use large fleets to attack a single ship. If haulers should not be asked to use multiple pilots to protect themselves then gankers should not need large fleet to attack them either. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17509
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:25:16 -
[205] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:baltec1 wrote:And it should require more than one freighter pilot to counter the work of all of those pilots. CCP disagrees. There was historically a method to prevent a freighter warping by triple webbing in the undock. Because it prevented the cancellation of warp, the pilot could not re-dock. Over-night it was deemed an exploit and a bannable offense. (20 Mar 2012, GM Grimmi). So the idea of scouts or logistics or web-to-warp, did not factor into CCP's decision. Perhaps its time bumping is given a through review.
Why?
There is already a method of avoiding bumping altogether and even if you are bumped you have several options to get away. The only problem is that you want to be able to solo your way out of every problem you face with a simple click of a button. Equally simply slapping more and more EHP on freighters is not the answer to poor piloting. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 01:11:59 -
[206] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I?
Your argument is that the 34% buff to your hull resists is enough to not fit a DCU on your PVE ship. So yea, name a pve ship that relys on a hull tank.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 01:15:22 -
[207] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: I think this is a great idea, now all you need to do is get CCP to make it so a support fleet with a freighter can actually do something against bumpers and gankers in general, without having to resort to being as bad as them (ganking the bumper).
Logi.
Sgt Ocker wrote: The game mechanics are already there for it, the server can tell when someone gets bumped and how hard, so why not make it a real mechanic so there can be an active, legal counter (aside from webbing the freighter off, which doesn't always work) to bumpers.
If a freighter pilot needs others with him (or multiple accounts) to counter bumpers, then there should be some risk for the bumper. CCP will never do this, the outcry from gankers would be endless. Honestly, look how defensive Baltec is over the mere suggestion bumping be made a legitimate mechanic that has legitimate repercussions.
Just think, bait freighters in highsec flying around specifically looking for bumping machs to kill. Oh the tears from the self entitled!!!
Bump the bumpers, web the freighter, get a fast ship 150km out in front of a bumped freighter and warp to it. You have counters to bumping, not using them does not mean you should get more. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:13:05 -
[208] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Bexol Regyri wrote:As an indy miner at first I was excited about this change. but after just a couple days I have seen a 500% increase in AFK/Bot mining retrievers and other soft mining ship just crushing the Ice belts. This is hurting my bottom line as a miner that only runs one account.
since CCP has neutered the groups that try to stop bots and afk mining, I suggest they add more staff to help battle this scourge. There are no groups that try to stop bots (except CCP) and AFK pilots have for the most part been unchanged. There's no reason people shouldn't still be able to gank retrievers other than them being too mad.
There is no longer any gain in ganking miners. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:14:15 -
[209] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: EDIT; What we don't need is more buffs to turrets and modules. There is enough power creep now.
We just got some power creep with this change |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:17:15 -
[210] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I? Your argument is that the 34% buff to your hull resists is enough to not fit a DCU on your PVE ship. So yea, name a pve ship that relys on a hull tank. No it's not, again that's purely talking about not losing the emergency hull buffer by removing the DCU. You have some serious comprehension issues there buddy. Probably hard to read past all of your flailing though, right?
You are the one going on about a PVE ship not needing a DCU because of the change to the hull resists. You swapped to this argument when you were getting called out on pvp ships so lets have this pve ship. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:05:11 -
[211] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:There is no longer any gain in ganking miners. baltec1 wrote:You are the one going on about a PVE ship not needing a DCU because of the change to the hull resists. You swapped to this argument when you were getting called out on pvp ships so lets have this pve ship. There's just too much salt in these posts now man. And no, as I have from the start, all I've stated is that some people definitely will choose not to us a DCU. You scream "NOONE WILL CHANGE!" is wrong, it's that simple. You're just saying it because yo're all mad. Well the change is done now buddy, so get over it or ragequit like a pro.
The first post is stating a fact and the second is asking for evidence to back up your argument.
So as you have changed the arguemtn back to "I have ships will no longer fit the DCU" I will ask again, what ships will no longer fit the DCU. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:10:19 -
[212] - Quote
Jaantrag wrote:Ganking is hard as it is as some say .. now even more against freighters .. as past couple weeks in uedama and other hotspots .. hitting the whales with no selecting .. playing the odds or so they say ... perhaps its best for the DCU change .. gankers need some change in eve .. perhaps go and lul around in null .. high sec is green for a reason ..
Removing piracy from highsec is not a good thing.
Jaantrag wrote: as seen the past weeks in uedama and other hotspots where prettu much any freighter thta went n there didint come thro the system .. gankers didint even think to see if its proffitable to hit or not .. well meybe they did .. but didint care .. that was proof that ganking was too easy .. just meybe cause u cant/dont want to field that many toons to take down a whale .. thats your problem ..
Thats just an outright lie, a tiny fraction of the freighter traffic through uedama were shot at.
Jaantrag wrote: back to DCU .. strippped down quite a few of em from my ships ..
Which ships and fits? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 18:24:38 -
[213] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No it's not, the first post is you making yet another wild claim based nowhere close to fact while the second is you misrepresenting my opinion. And the reason for both is because you're mad at the change.
Because of buffs you cannot turn a profit ganking barges anymore. There is nothing to gain from barge ganking so thats stating a fact.
The second is following the entire last page of your argument.
Lucas Kell wrote:And as I said before I'm not getting into EFT warrior posts with you as you sit around telling me that for every ship the defense would be better with a DCU, since defense isn't the only metric by which I measure ship fits.
Losing 1/3 of your EHP makes one hell of a difference. There is little point is having a massivly fast ship that is equally fragile when it enters web range which it will have to if you are packing a scram. You engaged in an "EFT war" the moment yo made a claim you will be no longer fitting a DCU on ships you fly. So far all the evidence shows you are making **** up.
Lucas Kell wrote: You are claiming there is no difference, but it's a provable fact that the DCU itself does less now and the the ship has higher base resists, so we know that claim is false. No more needs to be proven, since you can't even make reasonable claims when arguing your points.
There isn't any difference in the end result. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 10:19:40 -
[214] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Shhhhh, you're getting silly now. The difference is negligible and the same gankers I've seen out duelbox ganking a week ago are still doing so today.
That change happened years ago, way to go paying attention.
baltec1 wrote: No I didn't, I specifically avoided an EFT war, because I couldn't give a flying **** how you would fit a ship. Any fit given to you is just going to end with you going "But if you fit a DCU you have more defense", and you'll probably be right, but since defense isn't the only stat on a ship I care about and oftentimes not even close to the most important one, it's a completely irrelevant point to make. Yet you'd still make it then just repeat it until the end of time because that's what you do, especially when you're super salty like this.
There is nothing salty about pointing out you are making this all up. You wont engage with me because these ships you keep on insisting you have that wont fit a DCU now don't exist.
baltec1 wrote:But there certainly is a difference in the module. .
There really isn't. They didn't nerf the two resits that matter and by baking part of the structure resists into the hull its giving the exact same end result. Even if you go with a hull tank you still want to fit a DCU. It doesn't matter about the mod because it will always get you the same end result as you had before. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 08:37:52 -
[215] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:And yet gankers are still ganking miners, so you're confirmed to be crying over nothing.
Pirates don't gank them anymore, code are not pirates.
Lucas Kell wrote:Except you're not pointing out anything, you're making up obviously false claims because you're salty as **** that they made a change you don't like.
Every ship I have looked at that you have flown will be at a large disadvantage to a similar ship that fits a DCU. So far you have provided zero examples of ships that used to fit a DCU that will be better off not fitting a DCU now.
Lucas Kell wrote: Now you're whining on about old changes too. Why are you even playing this game? Sounds like you hate it.
YOU are the one who brought that up.
Lucas Kell wrote: Except there is. Look at the numbers. Claiming there isn't is obviously false.
Now quote everything I said and stop trying to argue with a point I never made. Its the same end result. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 08:53:38 -
[216] - Quote
Jaantrag wrote:this topic getting silly lol .. as stated before THERE is a Difrence in the module .. just cause the end result useing the module is the same dosent mean nohting changed ..
u guys do know not everyone go for the Tank fits with DCU-s .. extra resists without one gives a better then nohting buffer in there .. and might give an extra slot for damage mod or so to actualy make it so u might not even need the hull buffer .. get your head out of the tiny box u live in ...
We went over the maths many pages ago. Replacing a DCU with a damage mod gives you a much smaller boost in damage than the DCU gives in defense. Same goes for any other mod you care to fit.
Taking as an example lucas's favourate ship the taranis, as he fits it he will lose 1/3 of his EHP. That's a significant chunk of his tank gone both in terms of EHP and his effective repping power. Any taranis fitted in the same way but keeping the DCU will overpower him and any ship he tries to tackle will have an easier time killing him simple due to the fact he has to enter web/scram range.
Going to the other end of the scale a titan also now has access to a much more powerful DCU than ever before and the same thing goes to a lesser extent for the faction DCU which will be a must have mod on a lot of ships too. Nothing has changed in the DCU being a must have mod and in far too many cases, its an even more needed mod than before. So in the end, ganking has taken a significant whack with the nerf stick while the main target of the change has has no change. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:38:50 -
[217] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.
When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.
Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:56:20 -
[218] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.
Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).
The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.
Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).
On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.
In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.
The question with this is why did nobody do this before? This is the riddle nobody in favour of this change an answer. Fitting a DCU yields the exact same end results as before, if we didn't fit the RAH before then why would we now? |
|
|
|