Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:16:09 -
[1441] - Quote
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17509
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:25:16 -
[1442] - 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. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 23:24:41 -
[1443] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Your argument is literally "I can decide to make sub-optimal fit that will no longer need the DCU so the DCU is not a better options in the vast majority of the cases". No it's not, my argument is "ship fittings are about personalisation and choice and the fact that you won't choose to remove a DCU doesn't mean noone will".
baltec1 wrote:Name a pve ship that relys upon a structure tank. Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I? Have you ever tried arguing without throwing up strawmen left right and centre? Wanting a basic hull buffer so if your armor fails before your warp starts isn't a PvE ship relying on a structure tank.
baltec1 wrote:There is already a method of avoiding bumping altogether Yeah, it's called staying docked. It's not a very entertaining counter.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
846
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:17:37 -
[1444] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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. 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).
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!!!
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 01:11:59 -
[1445] - 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 -
[1446] - 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. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 05:31:51 -
[1447] - Quote
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?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1332
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:37:06 -
[1448] - Quote
When will you realise the hull buffer has nothing to do with why they are fit, Hull tanking aside?
I cannot belive you are so hard of comprehension thus can only conclude that you are trolling.
Or perhaps sufficiently bad that you like sub-par fit ships. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:41:09 -
[1449] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:When will you realise the hull buffer has nothing to do with why they are fit, Hull tanking aside? Except they do. Not to you because you are only talking about fleet doctrines, but if you look at ALL ship fits, that's a pretty big reason they are fit.
At the end of the day, the change is out, CCP saw your crying and decided like most people that it was not useful. So get over it. People already have removed the DCU, so it's had at least some impact, so op success.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1332
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 09:20:51 -
[1450] - Quote
Because people misunderstand where the bulk of the buff that modules gives a ship comes from, doesn't make them authorities on the subject.
Dumb people might have removed the mod, but maybe we shouldn't balance them and their silly fits?
I mean, you're not even prepared to man up and post a single fit. I think the phrase is all mouth and no trousers. |
|
Seth Kanan
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
12
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 10:04:24 -
[1451] - Quote
I think i will change my crow fit:
[Crow, Claire]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II Damage Control II
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Medium Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Scoped Warp Scrambler Warp Disruptor II
Rocket Launcher II Rocket Launcher II Rocket Launcher II Rocket Launcher II
Small Processor Overclocking Unit II Small Targeting System Subcontroller I
Mjolnir Rage Rocket x600 Mjolnir Javelin Rocket x600 Nova Rage Rocket x600 Nova Javelin Rocket x600 Navy Cap Booster 50 x18
Putting the DCU away will open up a lowslot and a rigslot and i can fit a tech2 scram. I will loose a littlebit of tank but will gain a lot of agility and speed with a second nano for example. Replacing the processor overcklocking with a tacklespeed rig maybe will let me tackle interceptors. I bet there are many more examples. But im still happy that the DCU is a good option to fit. People love that mod and use it often. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1332
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 11:05:34 -
[1452] - Quote
So that is quite a handy example.
If before the changes you dropped the DCU you'd have roughly 1933 ehp and 74 dps tank. Now you'll have 2117 and 74 tank.
With a DC that is 2739 & 85.
What I am trying to say is that if the fit can work acceptably without a DC today, it almost certainly could have done so before the changes. 184 EHP (the gap between pre and post patch) isn't going to make or break it when we consider the drop in active tank.
The DCU fit is still light years ahead in terms of EHP and active tank capability.
If that makes sense?
Sure, there will be the odd fit that gets away with it, but they almost certainly would have worked without it before. |
Seth Kanan
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
12
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 11:52:20 -
[1453] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:So that is quite a handy example.
If before the changes you dropped the DCU you'd have roughly 1933 ehp and 74 dps tank. Now you'll have 2117 and 74 tank.
With a DC that is 2739 & 85.
What I am trying to say is that if the fit can work acceptably without a DC today, it almost certainly could have done so before the changes. 184 EHP (the gap between pre and post patch) isn't going to make or break it when we consider the drop in active tank.
The DCU fit is still light years ahead in terms of EHP and active tank capability.
If that makes sense?
Sure, there will be the odd fit that gets away with it, but they almost certainly would have worked without it before.
I think that is where you are wrong. Actually that 184 EHP broke it for me. This EHP shifts my decision from a rather tanky approach to a rather speedy approach. |
Blitz Hacker
Critical Mass Inc. Luminari Conglomerate
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 12:18:28 -
[1454] - Quote
My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha. All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.
Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.
The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.
Back on topic..
The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type? |
Bexol Regyri
Wrong Hole Deep Drilling Co.
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 16:33:21 -
[1455] - Quote
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.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 16:52:42 -
[1456] - Quote
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.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2358
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 22:46:52 -
[1457] - Quote
Blitz Hacker wrote:My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha. All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.
Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.
The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.
Back on topic..
The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type?
Never mind all those Machariel fleets. Or all those artillery Hurricane fleets. No one uses artillery.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
850
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 00:17:34 -
[1458] - Quote
Blitz Hacker wrote:My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha. All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.
Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.
The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.
Back on topic..
The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type? Arty fits aren't about dps, they are about alpha which no other weapon system can match.
Arty machs, used right will alpha just about anything from an mwd cruiser, up to a carrier off the field.
The very slight ehp buff (if there even is one) just means you need 1 more arty fit ship in your fleet, not a big deal.
EDIT; What we don't need is more buffs to turrets and modules. There is enough power creep now.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:13:05 -
[1459] - 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 -
[1460] - 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 -
[1461] - 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. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 03:38:03 -
[1462] - Quote
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 Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
851
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 10:53:41 -
[1463] - 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. With the way the changes are, who is likely to see a DCU that does exactly the same thing it did before the change as not necessary?
You shield tank - DCU still gives you the same benefit. You armor tank - DCU still gives exactly the same benefit. Even someone wanting to hull tank is far better off with 60% resists with a DCU than 33% without it.
Aside from change for the sake of it, I can't understand why CCP changed a module to do exactly the same thing it did previously. Unless we are soon to get hull resist mods and decent reps, this change was nothing more than cosmetic.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Jaantrag
57
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:03:30 -
[1464] - Quote
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 ..
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 ..
back to DCU .. strippped down quite a few of em from my ships .. some of my PVE ships didint use it before the buff.. so little extra tank is good on em ..
EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17514
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:05:11 -
[1465] - 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 -
[1466] - 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? |
Jaantrag
57
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:56:39 -
[1467] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Removing piracy from highsec is not a good thing.
didint mean removeing it ... just the ones not cutting it thro meybe shouyld look another proffesions .. (dont tell anyone, but i occosionally gank in hs too) .. alts-online after all .. :)
baltec1 wrote:Thats just an outright lie, a tiny fraction of the freighter traffic through uedama were shot at.
well meybe little over-exaggerated but the times i was in uedama ... not a single one got thro .. meybe i just play on rush-hour ..
baltec1 wrote:Which ships and fits?
yeah well .. might aswell drop u my online times and announce when im flying them for easy target practice .. or so ..
but in general mainly armor tanked stuff that dont need the resist on shields and armor hardner instead of dcu will work lot better ..
u do know some armor incursion groups fly without dcu-s .. axtra hull if logi f-s up is always welcome there .
EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 15:35:20 -
[1468] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:With the way the changes are, who is likely to see a DCU that does exactly the same thing it did before the change as not necessary? I imagine nobody, but if you can find a DCU that does the same thing as one pre-patch, you might want to report it to CCP as a bug, because last I checked the DCU does less and the ship does more.
Sgt Ocker wrote:You shield tank - DCU still gives you the same benefit. You armor tank - DCU still gives exactly the same benefit. Even someone wanting to hull tank is far better off with 60% resists with a DCU than 33% without it. Indeed, so if someone is looking for defensive power only, then the DCU is the best choice. This we have covered. Now what if they don't favour defense but have a minimum defensive criteria that the 33% resists take them over but 0% resists would have left them below?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 15:40:49 -
[1469] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The first post is stating a fact and the second is asking for evidence to back up your argument. 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.
baltec1 wrote: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. 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. 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.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
FT Cold
FUITA Dead Terrorists
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 17:44:20 -
[1470] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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.
You can still turn a profit ganking miners today, but it has has never been about isk gain. Two catalysts fit for less than 2m a piece can still destroy retrievers, covetors, hulks and mackinaws, scoop the loot and turn a meager profit. The problem is, and always was, that the isk/hour for the effort required to hunt miners has never been worthwhile with more lucrative targets available that are easier to kill. Even when gank ships were insurable the isk/hour for the amount of work miner ganking takes was never worth mentioning. It has and will always be about getting a reaction, whether it's tears or changing the behavior of players.
As for the second point, there is no reason for a mission running ship to fit a DC, but it has been a relatively common practice for players to fit a DC on incursion running ships. It isn't strictly necessary, but some players make the judgement when they're using t2 fits or don't have links available and it isn't always about the extra shield and armor resists. Screw ups happen and the extra buffer isn't a bad way to ensure that your incursion battleship will have a little more time to sort problems out. Now, we have default hull resists, and as a result the DC is a less attractive module, something that if you're interested in suicide ganking blingy incursion ships, you should be happy about.
Also, I've previously outlined a number of situations about 30 pages back where it would be advantageous for players to drop the DC on their PVP fits. As I've said before, shield buffer and MASB fit frigates fighting AAR fit frigates, as well as a few scram kiters, gain more from additional DPS than they do from additional tank in addition to how the structure changes make these fits more viable. It was ignored then as I'm sure it will be again.
I don't think that the DC and structure changes were even meant to be a sweeping change to offset the large scale viability of the DC. The DC is one of the hallmarks of a PVP fit ship along with warp disruptors and scramblers and aside from a few cases, like those above, most PVP ships will continue to fit it, which isn't a bad thing. It's something that separates lvl4 or ratting battleships from PVP fits in a way that provides meaningful gameplay choices. For the rest of PVP fit ships, a few fits didn't use it before the changes and a handful more will drop it now, which to me, looks like the intended consequence.
You've painted a grim picture of freighter ganking but you've picked a subset of numbers that only supports your narrative about the hull changes. Yes, it is significantly more expensive to gank a max tanked obelisk or anshar, but on the low end, such as for a max capacity charon, the change in isk is relatively small. Before, under the best circumstances, a ganking group could destroy an expander fit charon with as few as 9 catalysts, and now, that number is 11, vs 25 for a max tank fit. To buy two max dps catas, thats it's about 25m isk, and maybe that's the change that CCP desires. A small impact on the low end and a big impact on the high end to balance the downsides and rewards of certain behaviors.
Given the low barrier to entry and potential lucrativeness, freighter ganking is not going to go away. A quick check of zkill confirms my statement. Yes, it's going to be harder in all cases, but on the low end, it won't be much harder, and for most groups, the structure change will be absorbed by the extra players already present on freighter killmails who aren't always there because they need to be to ensure the kill, but are there simply to participate.
It's time for people in this thread to get real about the DC and structure changes. The amount of inane bickering is a detriment to the game and is only going to alienate CCP from wanting to be inclusive to players in the dev cycle. Some of CCP's changes are reactive and at some point you've got to accept that it's their vision of the game that matters, and if they think that freighters are being ganked too often, or that it's too easy to gank them, or that the wreck HP changes need a counterbalance, then that is what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |