EVE Search - Sticky:[March] Damage Control Tiericide

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[March] Damage Control Tiericide

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13725	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:18:44 - [1] - Quote It's happening! We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Damage Controls. The issue with Damage Controls is that they're essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships. This limits fitting choice quite significantly. However because they're so powerful and so ubiquitous, simply nerfing them would be a large EHP nerf to almost every ship in EVE, knocking a lot of other dynamics out of balance. So the plan is to nerf the hull resistance bonus of damage controls by a large margin, but also buff every ship in the game at the same time to compensate. We'll be reducing the hull resist benefit of Damage Controls by about 1/3 (going to 40% for T2 and 30% for T1) but also adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The big exception is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. We're also planning on completing two long-time player requests: 1) Adding faction and officer versions of Damage Controls 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules We recognize that this is a pretty huge and far-reaching set of changes, so we'll be especially interested in all your feedback from SISI! Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers: We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading. Thanks! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13725	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:18:58 - [2] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Cephei Kells Black Omega Security The OSS 29	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:50:17 - [3] - Quote THATS 'RADICAL' MAN WOOO
TigerXtrm KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1368	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:58:22 - [4] - Quote I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Ben Booley Stimulus Rote Kapelle 19	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:00:27 - [5] - Quote So after making hull tanks more viable with the changes to reinforced bulkheads and the addition of transverse bulkheads a few patches ago, why are you hitting every single damage control with a significant nerf to hull resists? E: i should read all of posts before I post, the 33% base hull resist balance it out
Khador Vess Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 262	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:00:51 - [6] - Quote Do you have a plan for the 'legacy' damage control items in game like interior forcefiled array and GLFF Containment Field. No one really fits them anymore as they are more a collectors item. But would be nice to confirm they will still exist or not.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3376	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:04:54 - [7] - Quote What a time to be Gallente m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Current Habit Rusty Pricks 67	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:05:51 - [8] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules But how are we gonna overheat our damage control if the narrative requires it??
5pitf1re Black Omega Security The OSS 90	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:06:00 - [9] - Quote "Syndicate Signal* Damage Control"*?
Carbon Alabel The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 6	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:07:53 - [10] - Quote Can we get a hull repair bonus added to Bastion Modules?

Dunamis55 NER Industries 12	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:10:56 - [11] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? My thoughts exactly. Quite confusing; surely this would just make freighters tankier straight out of the box?
Bezdar22 Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:11:18 - [12] - Quote Ben Booley wrote: So after making hull tanks more viable with the changes to reinforced bulkheads and the addition of transverse bulkheads a few patches ago, why are you hitting every single damage control with a significant nerf to hull resists? E: i should read all of posts before I post, the 33% base hull resist balance it out agree with u .. seems CCP doesnt do anything planned ... i wonder what they smoke

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13731	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:12:09 - [13] - Quote Khador Vess wrote: Do you have a plan for the 'legacy' damage control items in game like interior forcefield array and GLFF Containment Field. No one really fits them anymore as they are more a collectors item. But would be nice to confirm they will still exist or not. They will be unified and converted into the 'Basic' Damage Control, the same way we've been unifying the other legacy basic versions of modules. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Phlazar Quentoz The Work House 3	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:13:50 - [14] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Yes, can someone explain the connection to me? Am I missing something?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2351	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:16:48 - [15] - Quote Phlazar Quentoz wrote: TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Yes, can someone explain the connection to me? Am I missing something? It means that freighter ganking was recently buffed by making it a lot harder to deny loot to the gankers. Now, freighters are going to be harder to kill. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 789	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:17:54 - [16] - Quote Phlazar Quentoz wrote: TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Yes, can someone explain the connection to me? Am I missing something? gankers received the tiniest of buffs so it's time for another massive nerfbat to ganking
Current Habit Rusty Pricks 68	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:18:43 - [17] - Quote Phlazar Quentoz wrote: TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Yes, can someone explain the connection to me? Am I missing something? Anti-ganking people used to have thrashers ready to destroy the freighter wreck as soon as the freighter was destroyed so the gankers wouldn't be able to loot the freighter (and it thus profit from the gank). Now that freighter wrecks no longer have 500hp a single thrasher can't deny the loot any longer.
Makoto Priano Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium 8043	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:18:51 - [18] - Quote 5pitf1re wrote: "Syndicate Signal* Damage Control"*? Seconded. Syndicate Signal? Any relation to this? Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
Khador Vess Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 263	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:19:46 - [19] - Quote Phlazar Quentoz wrote: TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? Yes, can someone explain the connection to me? Am I missing something? Its not directly related as such HP Buff to wrecks was a buff to ganking. It makes it harder for people to shoot the wrecks to deny loot to the gankers. 33% base hull resist makes most freighters much tankier which is a nerf to ganking. there is a ying to every yang. and for every buff there is a nerf.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13734	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:20:19 - [20] - Quote Makoto Priano wrote: 5pitf1re wrote: "Syndicate Signal* Damage Control"*? Seconded. Syndicate Signal? Any relation to this? Copy/paste error. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


Random Interrupt Concordiat Spaceship Samurai 27	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:20:42 - [21] - Quote Hull Tanking is officially the New Meta 2016! So excited. So good.
BigSako Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 120	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:21:38 - [22] - Quote Please don't make damage controls passive... We're not all F1 monkeys! Also some of us actually count on the odd chance that someone forgot to active their Damage Control
Skyler Hawk The Tuskers The Tuskers Co. 67	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:21:44 - [23] - Quote Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners?

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13734	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:22:24 - [24] - Quote Skyler Hawk wrote: Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners? Yes. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 557	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:26:36 - [25] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Not empty quoting Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Berry Nice NO TAXES FOR EVER 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:27:48 - [26] - Quote So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it.
H3llHound Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team 56	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:29:11 - [27] - Quote Fozzie, what do you think about changing the name of the Syndicate DC to 'Poitot Damage Control' and add the line 'Did you know that Poitot is the only named system in Syndicate? '
Clay Robertson No Vacancies No Vacancies. 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:29:15 - [28] - Quote have there been any considerations as to the possibility of making it possible to fit a DC on a freighter? I think many can agree that freighters are far, far too vulnerable at the moment and while a 33% hull bonus is a step in the right direction, are there any other plans to buff freighters?
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 778	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:30:53 - [29] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? HP wreck bonus was added to support gawking. As others would gank the wreck before the loot could be scooped. To balance that, Frighters get a Structure bonus. So now it's harder to gank, and it's harder to kill the wrecks. I'm making popcorn atm, I can't wait for the tears from gankers who want things handed to them with little effort!
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 778	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:32:15 - [30] - Quote Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good...

Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 885	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:35:39 - [31] - Quote Um...Errr...So a few questions come to mind. I'm not going to do the math right now, but this means all Gallente ships get a bigger base EHP buff than other ships. I think about solo comet fits, which can sub another magstab for the old DCU, and still have beast EHP care of free resists in conjunction with even more damage, and it was already arguably top of the heap for this sort of thing. It tapers off with bigger ship classes where resists matter much more, but at least with frigates, this is sort of a big deal. Have you considered different classes/sizes of ships having different base hull resistance? Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
Mark Marketson Ravens Of Faith and Light 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:36:14 - [32] - Quote I think the freighter EHP buff was needed, ganking was too cheap. LIke this change.
Jin'taan Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:36:54 - [33] - Quote I'm not saying I called this But I totally called this
Akrasjel Lanate Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate 1873	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:41:35 - [34] - Quote Gallente Master Race Akrasjel Lanate Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate Executor of Naquatech Syndicate Citizen of Solitude
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 85	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:45:42 - [35] - Quote Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 2918	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:46:55 - [36] - Quote I think you missed the "Federation Navy Damage Control" in your list. JUSTK is recruiting.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2201	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:47:39 - [37] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, I'm not sure freighters need to be any safer, but at least I am glad you are now on record saying that you "like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking". History has shown that has not been your development stance in the past, but I will now know not to worry too much if another nerf to suicide ganking is announced as a buff will be right around the corner.
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 780	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:48:51 - [38] - Quote Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 150	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:51:08 - [39] - Quote So finally the freighters get their buff so they can be safer while autopiloting through eve, because we need more afk work in eve. NOT! But nice thing about the Damgecontrols. -1 to freighterbuff +1 for the damagecontrols
Silver Isu Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:51:26 - [40] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. So you fixed a completely broken, uncounterable mechanic. This does not justify a massive blanket buff to freighter EHP. Not speaking about all the other gank targets as well. Gankers punish people for stupidity. Untanked people oblivious to their surroundings are prime targets. Now you are seriously nerfing ganking by giving all gank targets a free EHP buff. During the past few years CCP has shown a consistent trend to nerf ganking. Every "buff" has been met with several nerfs, so the predator and prey environment is already out of whack.

Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4956	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:52:15 - [41] - Quote How will this work with Bastion mode on Marauders? Will they have have a base hull resist of 66% when Bastion is activated? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Hector Gonzalos Voices in our heads 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:54:02 - [42] - Quote Are Bastion modules' bonus res to structure going to be untouched as well? This could lead to some pretty beefy Marauders.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2351	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:54:04 - [43] - Quote Mai Khumm wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:54:25 - [44] - Quote Does this change the balance or strength between the Reactive hardener and the damage control?
Elizabeth Norn Nornir Research 812	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:56:03 - [45] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. Will polarized weapons will negate this? WTS ME 10 TE 20 BPOs & BPO Packs WTS Collectible Large Rigged Small/Medium Ships
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 86	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:59:06 - [46] - Quote Silver Isu wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. So you fixed a completely broken, uncounterable mechanic. This does not justify a massive blanket buff to freighter EHP. Not speaking about all the other gank targets as well. Gankers punish people for stupidity. Untanked people oblivious to their surroundings are prime targets. Now you are seriously nerfing ganking by giving all gank targets a free EHP buff. During the past few years CCP has shown a consistent trend to nerf ganking. Every "buff" has been met with several nerfs, so the predator and prey environment is already out of whack. You hiding behind a freshly made alt account aside, ganking has become a well-oiled machine. They need a new wrench every now and then. Things were getting way too easy for the gank crowd. Guess you will have to adjust accordingly.
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 86	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:59:53 - [47] - Quote Elizabeth Norn wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. Will polarized weapons will negate this? It strips out all other built in resist, so I'd assume so, yeah.
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 780	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:00:18 - [48] - Quote Querns wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. Did you ask permission to post in this thread? It's more buttons then "F1"
eiedu Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:01:11 - [49] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. I would just like to point out that the correlation between wreck HP and freighter HP is coincidental. Wrecks having more HP does not make it easier to gank freighters. Whereas freighters having more hp actually makes it harder to gank. All you're really doing is throwing the "predator and prey" environment out of whack. So how about you buy us dinner first?
Adam Lyon Incident Command Local Is Primary 15	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:02:35 - [50] - Quote I'd like to see the new IFFAs at the same CPU requirements for the current ones. There are a lot of fits that use IFFAs for fitting rather than vanity over the M3 version and at the end of the day 3 cpu can kill certain niche fits.

Mark Marketson Ravens Of Faith and Light 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:03:11 - [51] - Quote Querns wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. yep, and how many T1 catalyst you need to pop a freighter in .5 system? About 300 M ISK worth?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2351	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:04:09 - [52] - Quote Mai Khumm wrote: Querns wrote: Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. Did you ask permission to post in this thread? It's more buttons then "F1" I have a special posting dispensation -- I no longer have to post form 1488-GBS to be allowed permission to post in a thread. I will, however, take your inability to form a coherent argument as an admission of defeat. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Anthar Thebess 1452	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:05:34 - [53] - Quote This is bit extreme change for all type of ships, people will abuse it. Armagedons, moros , revelation - and all similar ships will be bulkhead tanked by default. This will limit small guys ganking, as you will need big group of gankers - so this kind of ganks will be limited for sure. People will stop hauling 1 bil in bulkhead freighters, because it is safe they will pack more. Super, do they deserve so huge buff? You want to change freighter ganking? Give them bonus to resistances connected to race. This way there will be no more 1 gank ship for all ganks. Do it only for freighter not to all ships. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Light Combat Drone Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:06:19 - [54] - Quote Berry Nice wrote: A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Nice fake, exagerated math there! With a 33% increase to hull would mean a fully-bulkheaded, all Vs Anshar which costs 7.5B isk and sacrificed cargo for EHP and can only carry 121k m3 of it, would require 17 pilots in Taloses (costing 2.4B isk) to kill it in 0.5 if they set up the gank right and prime Concord.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2352	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:07:50 - [55] - Quote Mark Marketson wrote: yep, and how many T1 catalyst you need to pop a freighter in .5 system? About 300 M ISK worth? A lot less than you'd need to pop the same freighter that actually fit for running through the known highsec chokepoints in the game. If you're unwilling to use the tools the game provides you to safeguard yourself, CCP shouldn't have to hold your hand. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Agent Known Scope Works Psychotic Tendencies. 53	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:07:52 - [56] - Quote Querns wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. You're forgetting that many ganked freighters have a bunch of loot which is the whole point of the gank to begin with (unless you're bored and gank an empty JF). Yes, more manpower will be required and it will increase the floor of when it's profitable to gank based on cargo contents (so, more than 1b in a freighter to maybe 1.5b before profitability? Not sure how many extra ships). Suicide ganking is a zero-risk exercise, so there should be more of a cost to essentially get billions in loot that's still quite an amount even if split between more people.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 290	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:09:41 - [57] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, I'm not sure freighters need to be any safer, but at least I am glad you are now on record saying that you "like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking". History has shown that has not been your development stance in the past, but I will now know not to worry too much if another nerf to suicide ganking is announced as a buff will be right around the corner. I'm sure that they are aware how skewed things are towards gankers. While not the ultimate solution, this change at least shows that the guys in development are aware of the need to balance the field somewhat, so I'm looking forward to future changes of looting (and maybe even bumping) mechanics. Also, very interesting change overall.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 1985	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:11:57 - [58] - Quote Good job, nice execution. Still though, the real issue with suicide ganking isn't so much the kill part, it's the endless bumping beforehand... EHPs don't actually matter that much when you put them in comparison with other parts of a suicide gank. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 780	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:12:44 - [59] - Quote Querns wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Querns wrote: Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. Did you ask permission to post in this thread? It's more buttons then "F1" I have a special posting dispensation -- I no longer have to post form 1488-GBS to be allowed permission to post in a thread. I will, however, take your inability to form a coherent argument as an admission of defeat. The original OP that I quoted really didn't need a reply to defeat. As Fozzie already killed that off in a previous post. So if you wish that I was "defeated" then...whatever. Believe whatever you're told to believe... Now shoo....
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2352	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:14:06 - [60] - Quote Agent Known wrote: You're forgetting that many ganked freighters have a bunch of loot which is the whole point of the gank to begin with (unless you're bored and gank an empty JF). Yes, more manpower will be required and it will increase the floor of when it's profitable to gank based on cargo contents (so, more than 1b in a freighter to maybe 1.5b before profitability? Not sure how many extra ships). Suicide ganking is a zero-risk exercise, so there should be more of a cost to essentially get billions in loot that's still quite an amount even if split between more people. Far be it for you to exercise a modicum of restraint in your cargo value when transiting known dangerous areas, or gasp not transiting them at all. Limiting your loot value not only reduces the likelihood that you'll be targeted, but it also reduces the potential payout to the gankers. You can also use the humble Jump Freighter's built-in jump drive to transit past the choke points to reduce your risk further. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 355	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:18:30 - [61] - Quote I quit EVE.
flesh tearer Sneaky Git Industry 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:18:34 - [62] - Quote can will now get bonuses on logi ships for using hull reppers
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:18:37 - [63] - Quote This is such a bad and unimaginative change. Freighters are in a fine place. Don't believe me? Go look at Jita, Uedama or Niarja. People use freighters a lot even though there are plenty alternatives that are almost unkillable. DSTs, blockade runners, JFs are all almost immune in high sec if properly flown. I guess ccp dumped the whole analysis thing when it comes to ganking nerfs? How many freighters die to a gank per 1000 freighter jumps? How many freighter die to wardecks compared to ganking?
Makoto Priano Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium 8044	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:19:51 - [64] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Makoto Priano wrote: 5pitf1re wrote: "Syndicate Signal* Damage Control"*? Seconded. Syndicate Signal? Any relation to this? Copy/paste error. Well, bugger. Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
X Gallentius Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 2919	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:24:34 - [65] - Quote flesh tearer wrote: can will now get bonuses on logi ships for using hull reppers Exeqs should get hull repping bonuses for their drones. JUSTK is recruiting.
Light Combat Drone Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:25:58 - [66] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers: How about varying the proportion of resist between shield/armor/hull it gives between different models? As it stands everyone will be using T2 always or the highest meta they can afford. If you varied these %s slightly, there would be compelling reasons to use specific versions of the module on specific ships. Ex. a 15/7.5/30 model vs a 10/7.5/40
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 331	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:26:42 - [67] - Quote Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. lol crying cause your cheap risk free ganks are getting nerfed.. Into the bucket dear... "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:28:01 - [68] - Quote How many expanded freighters die compared to bulkheaded ones? 1/20 would be my guess Maybe that's a hint that freighter pilots are making decisions that lead to their death? It also proves that ehp is not really the issue.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 914	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:28:07 - [69] - Quote Querns wrote: Agent Known wrote: You're forgetting that many ganked freighters have a bunch of loot which is the whole point of the gank to begin with (unless you're bored and gank an empty JF). Yes, more manpower will be required and it will increase the floor of when it's profitable to gank based on cargo contents (so, more than 1b in a freighter to maybe 1.5b before profitability? Not sure how many extra ships). Suicide ganking is a zero-risk exercise, so there should be more of a cost to essentially get billions in loot that's still quite an amount even if split between more people. Far be it for you to exercise a modicum of restraint in your cargo value when transiting known dangerous areas, or gasp not transiting them at all. Limiting your loot value not only reduces the likelihood that you'll be targeted, but it also reduces the potential payout to the gankers. You can also use the humble Jump Freighter's built-in jump drive to transit past the choke points to reduce your risk further. Maybe you just need to pick better targets? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Silver Isu Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:28:21 - [70] - Quote Hendrink Collie wrote: Silver Isu wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. So you fixed a completely broken, uncounterable mechanic. This does not justify a massive blanket buff to freighter EHP. Not speaking about all the other gank targets as well. Gankers punish people for stupidity. Untanked people oblivious to their surroundings are prime targets. Now you are seriously nerfing ganking by giving all gank targets a free EHP buff. During the past few years CCP has shown a consistent trend to nerf ganking. Every "buff" has been met with several nerfs, so the predator and prey environment is already out of whack. You hiding behind a freshly made alt account aside, ganking has become a well-oiled machine. They need a new wrench every now and then. Things were getting way too easy for the gank crowd. Guess you will have to adjust accordingly. So every time someone makes a good tactic to something just nerf it instead of wait for the opposition to come up with something? Ganking is extremely rare and very few freighters die, so called "anti-gankers" have no organization what so ever. With your logic I think we could nerf pretty much everything in game, since people have figured out great tactics for them.

Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:30:02 - [71] - Quote helana Tsero wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. lol crying cause your cheap risk free ganks are getting nerfed.. Into the bucket dear... Miniluv and Code spend more isk than most null sec alliances. There is nothing cheap about ganking. Anyone that think ganking groups are rich is ********. Yes we have some isk after 5 years of ganking every day. If we all ran incursions we would be trillionaires.
Sissy Fuzz Sissy Fuzz Communications 75	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:30:10 - [72] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: So finally the freighters get their buff so they can be safer while autopiloting through eve, because we need more afk work in eve. NOT! But nice thing about the Damgecontrols. -1 to freighterbuff +1 for the damagecontrols What do you care if people are afk. Mind your own business.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3762	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:30:10 - [73] - Quote Berry Nice wrote: ...... edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Then don't do it. Eve is a big game. There are plenty of other things to do. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2201	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:30:11 - [74] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Black Pedro wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, I'm not sure freighters need to be any safer, but at least I am glad you are now on record saying that you "like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking". History has shown that has not been your development stance in the past, but I will now know not to worry too much if another nerf to suicide ganking is announced as a buff will be right around the corner. I'm sure that they are aware how skewed things are towards gankers. While not the ultimate solution, this change at least shows that the guys in development are aware of the need to balance the field somewhat, so I'm looking forward to future changes of looting (and maybe even bumping) mechanics. Also, very interesting change overall. It is an interesting change - it will shake up ship balance everywhere which is always a good thing. But didn't you read what the man wrote? They like to pair buffs and nerfs when it comes to suicide ganking. And changes to looting or bumping that nerf the activity of suicide ganking will come with corresponding buffs for the gankers. Conversly, this change is being made to balance out the benefits of easier looting that gankers are currently enjoying courtesy of CCP's last change. Nothing stays the same - ships, modules, and mechanics can and do change. But suicide ganking isn't going away. Freighters are still going to regularly explode after this change and will after any hypothetical changes to looting or bumping. I see no evidence that CCP thinks things are "skewed" in any way - more like things are working pretty much as intended as Fozzie said above. If they do, they certainly keeping secret about it and moving at a glacial pace. I think that may just be a case of wishful thinking on your part.
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 331	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:33:43 - [75] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: helana Tsero wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. lol crying cause your cheap risk free ganks are getting nerfed.. Into the bucket dear... Miniluv and Code spend more isk than most null sec alliances. There is nothing cheap about ganking. Anyone that think ganking groups are rich is ********. Yes we have some isk after 5 years of ganking every day. If we all ran incursions we would be trillionaires. lol goons are the richest and most powerful organisation in the game... brb ordering empty swimming pool. "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:34:35 - [76] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: It's happening! but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance where was the ganking buff post hyperdunking?
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:34:47 - [77] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Black Pedro wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, I'm not sure freighters need to be any safer, but at least I am glad you are now on record saying that you "like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking". History has shown that has not been your development stance in the past, but I will now know not to worry too much if another nerf to suicide ganking is announced as a buff will be right around the corner. I'm sure that they are aware how skewed things are towards gankers. While not the ultimate solution, this change at least shows that the guys in development are aware of the need to balance the field somewhat, so I'm looking forward to future changes of looting (and maybe even bumping) mechanics. Also, very interesting change overall. It is an interesting change - it will shake up ship balance everywhere which is always a good thing. But didn't you read what the man wrote? They like to pair buffs and nerfs when it comes to suicide ganking. And changes to looting or bumping that nerf the activity of suicide ganking will come with corresponding buffs for the gankers. Conversly, this change is being made to balance out the benefits of easier looting that gankers are currently enjoying courtesy of CCP's last change. Nothing stays the same - ships, modules, and mechanics can and do change. But suicide ganking isn't going away. Freighters are still going to regularly explode after this change and will after any hypothetical changes to looting or bumping. I see no evidence that CCP thinks things are "skewed" in any way - more like things are working pretty much as intended as Fozzie said above. If they do, they certainly keeping secret about it and moving at a glacial pace. I think that may just be a case of wishful thinking on your part. You're dumb. Wreck shooting was an unstoppable mechanic done by 1 guy. Freighter ganking is easy to stop if you bring the same amount of people as the gankers.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:37:32 - [78] - Quote Quote: helana Tsero wrote: Miniluv and Code spend more isk than most null sec alliances. There is nothing cheap about ganking. Anyone that think ganking groups are rich is ********. Yes we have some isk after 5 years of ganking every day. If we all ran incursions we would be trillionaires. lol goons are the richest and most powerful organisation in the game... brb ordering empty swimming pool. Goons finances and ganking aren't related in any way.
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 86	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:38:52 - [79] - Quote Silver Isu wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Silver Isu wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. So you fixed a completely broken, uncounterable mechanic. This does not justify a massive blanket buff to freighter EHP. Not speaking about all the other gank targets as well. Gankers punish people for stupidity. Untanked people oblivious to their surroundings are prime targets. Now you are seriously nerfing ganking by giving all gank targets a free EHP buff. During the past few years CCP has shown a consistent trend to nerf ganking. Every "buff" has been met with several nerfs, so the predator and prey environment is already out of whack. You hiding behind a freshly made alt account aside, ganking has become a well-oiled machine. They need a new wrench every now and then. Things were getting way too easy for the gank crowd. Guess you will have to adjust accordingly. So every time someone makes a good tactic to something just nerf it instead of wait for the opposition to come up with something? Ganking is extremely rare and very few freighters die, so called "anti-gankers" have no organization what so ever. With your logic I think we could nerf pretty much everything in game, since people have figured out great tactics for them. Nice slippery slope there.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 290	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:39:49 - [80] - Quote Lovely discussion of the topic by guys that went HTFU just a few threads before (hing: Bumping and looting mechanics proposals + wreck changes). Love you guys.

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 356	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:43:15 - [81] - Quote Just flip off the pvp switch already, stop pretending you care.
Light Combat Drone Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:44:06 - [82] - Quote 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.
QuickSwipe Collier Deep Space Whaling Crew Something To Fear 2	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:44:37 - [83] - Quote I do hope you are taking the appropriate steps to ensure that the overall EHP of freighters does not increase via a minor buffer reduction on hull, otherwise you risk a further nerf to hisec ganking which as we all know is already difficult enough as it is. Gankers have managed fine on dealing with 500 EHP wrecks, though the occasional troll thrasher is indeed annoying it isin't game changing. But increasing the hull buffer would be very skewed in favor of nerfing ganking. If you are going to buff freighters at least give the tornado a rate of fire bonus so a 3% hardwire would get 2 volleys off in a .9 system, that would be fair
Malon Kreed No Kreed 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:46:01 - [84] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Lovely discussion of the topic by guys that went HTFU just a few threads before (hing: Bumping and looting mechanics proposals + wreck changes). Love you guys. But why didn't Anti-ganking save the Hulk?
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 15	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:48:23 - [85] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: helana Tsero wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. lol crying cause your cheap risk free ganks are getting nerfed.. Into the bucket dear... Miniluv and Code spend more isk than most null sec alliances. There is nothing cheap about ganking. Anyone that thinks ganking groups are rich is ********. Yes we have some isk after 5 years of ganking every day. If we all ran incursions we would be trillionaires. if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... just need to fix looting directly into a dst fleet hangar without dst going suspect to even things out a bit now wrecks are pretty much guaranteed not to be popped.
QuickSwipe Collier Deep Space Whaling Crew Something To Fear 2	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:48:56 - [86] - Quote Malon Kreed wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Lovely discussion of the topic by guys that went HTFU just a few threads before (hing: Bumping and looting mechanics proposals + wreck changes). Love you guys. But why didn't Anti-ganking save the Hulk? You can't save what is already dead.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:53:15 - [87] - 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. How many died to ganks though?
Thanatos Marathon Black Fox Marauders 606	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:57:38 - [88] - Quote FW LP store DCU, did you not make it to the list!? Black Fox Marauders is Recruiting
Black Wardog Grey Frog Bureaucracy 0	Posted - 2016.02.11 21:58:31 - [89] - Quote LOL Freighter ganking is PVP? Since when? Freighter ganking is pve like the starters mission where you need to loose your ship to get it done. Most freighters are ap and so controlled not by players but by an ai (and a bad one indeed) I dont quite see the hate about the ap. It is fine to earn money with: PI Trade Research Toon growing and selling (and now sp trading) Production Moons And all AFK, but when a ship flies unattended it's bad? Not saying that they should prevent shooting it. Afterall they are game :) But the earlier named ways to earn money are all, almost, totally safe. No one interferes when you do production, research or trading or research. So be happy with the ap pilots. They give you the opportunity at least to interact with their making money :) and prevent it. Thats not carebearing compared to PI.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 886	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:00:35 - [90] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI

Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 914	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:00:47 - [91] - Quote Thanatos Marathon wrote: FW LP store DCU, did you not make it to the list!? Now there's a good point. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Harkin Issier Negative-Impact Violence of Action. 64	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:01:42 - [92] - Quote There is no longer a meta DCU which costs less than 20 CPU. This is excessively harsh in my opinion. I think the "Compact" version should cost 17 CPU, especially considering it's significantly less effective than the current Internal Force Field Array I.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:02:28 - [93] - Quote https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/ should give you an idea for last 24 hours
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2591	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:02:54 - [94] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Just flip off the pvp switch already, stop pretending you care. Masao Kurata wrote: I quit EVE. Just quit already, stop showing you still care about the game and give em your stuff if possible.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:04:33 - [95] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again. i was responding to the poster who claimed that gankers werent rich...
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 292	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:04:55 - [96] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: I quit EVE. Don't let the door... ...can I have your stuff... etc
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 358	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:05:39 - [97] - Quote Already giving away my stuff. Just writing some EVE mails and giving myself a week to liquidate my assets and reconsider. No you can't have any, the recipients are already determined.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 421	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:01 - [98] - Quote I didn't think you'd go this far with changing damage controls, but I have to say these are some excellent changes. Making DCs passive was something I was always hoping would happen and opens up a lot of interesting new options when fitting transport ships for high sec. Also increasing the base hull resists and lowering DC resists was a great move. This is a massive change in respect to ship fitting. As a result I am going to have to re-evaluate pretty much every one of my fittings. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:22 - [99] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/ should give you an idea for last 24 hours 9 aren't even in high sec 7 aren't ganks 14 ganks 10 of them in uedama, 1 system that can be avoided and should be scouted every time
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2192	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:24 - [100] - Quote This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). I'm my own NPC alt.

bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:58 - [101] - Quote Black Wardog wrote: LOL Freighter ganking is PVP? Since when? Freighter ganking is pve like the starters mission where you need to loose your ship to get it done. Most freighters are ap and so controlled not by players but by an ai (and a bad one indeed) I dont quite see the hate about the ap. It is fine to earn money with: PI Trade Research Toon growing and selling (and now sp trading) Production Moons And all AFK, but when a ship flies unattended it's bad? Not saying that they should prevent shooting it. Afterall they are game :) But the earlier named ways to earn money are all, almost, totally safe. No one interferes when you do production, research or trading or research. So be happy with the ap pilots. They give you the opportunity at least to interact with their making money :) and prevent it. Thats not carebearing compared to PI. u forgot afktar ratting which is what many of these 'anti afk' people do with alts . there's a word for this that begins with 'h' and ends in 'y' ...
Messenger Of Truth Butlerian Crusade 31	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:09:29 - [102] - Quote Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change. Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills. Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 295	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:11:00 - [103] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again. Sorry but getting infinitely bumped by a single guy while his buddies log on for the ping ain't really definition of risky or exciting gameplay.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:11:16 - [104] - Quote Messenger Of Truth wrote: Freighter hp buff...probably not as important as fixing bump-tackling so that it as risky as module-tackling. I'm sure some freighter pilots will be happy to have more HP, although it will just mean that the costs for the gankers go up slightly but their tactics, and the "ease" of ganking won't significantly change. Once consequence-free bump-tackling gets fixed we'll see more interaction opportunities. Maybe once bump-tacklers stop being protected by concord we'll see groups of people getting together to hunt bumpers. Perhaps gankers will use cheaper ships to bump, but more bumpers. Perhaps gankers will still risk expensive machariels, but sometimes we'll see machariel kills. Fixing consequence-free bump-tackling will have a better impact on player interaction than this freighter HP buff. +1
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17321	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:12:37 - [105] - 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
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 421	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:15:35 - [106] - Quote By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now. I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 12	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:39 - [107] - Quote 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?
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 886	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:50 - [108] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Sorry but getting infinitely bumped by a single guy while his buddies log on for the ping ain't really definition of risky or exciting gameplay. Where were your people or alts scouting and webbing? You know you can counter-bump...where is your ping for buddies to counter bump the freighter into warp or bump the enemy Mach? Exciting contested game play right here, but so few people actually do it. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
Messenger Of Truth Butlerian Crusade 31	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:16:54 - [109] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. As if tears aren't enough reason to gank! Even if it cost 1 billion isk to blow up a ship, people would still do it for the lulz.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 358	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:17:02 - [110] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 50% more. A 33% resistance increase is a 50% EHP increase in that layer.

Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:19:07 - [111] - Quote This is the same as buffing solo travelling supers by giving them more ehp. Except worse.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:21:12 - [112] - Quote new buckets please...
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 914	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:21:51 - [113] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now. I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain. Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version. ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 311	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:23:43 - [114] - Quote It doesn't matter, ganking is doomed to failure anyway as anti-gankers continue to refuse to learn or adapt. Since 2012, the 'changes' to ganking have heavily favored anti-ganking. 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. CCP Fozzie then said that the offset for that is a 15% to 35% increase in freighter EHP across the board. A small QOL change for gankers results in a a significant buff for freighters. 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. tl;dr I'm glad I no longer have to deal with the player versus developer existence that is ganking. Anti-gankers literally follow the mantra of "complain rather than try" and it works. They just whine and beg for changes until CCP obliges them, and guess what? They still keep crying. This is like the third buff to freighter EHP recently and the whines and cries still haven't stopped.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 914	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:26:57 - [115] - Quote Globby wrote: the whines and cries still haven't stopped. Well, you keep posting. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 422	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:29:18 - [116] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 358	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:29:27 - [117] - Quote There's no point in fighting carebears any more when CCP is fighting for them. The only way to fight CCP is to unsub.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17322	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:30:26 - [118] - 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
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 422	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:32:10 - [119] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Moac Tor wrote: By the way, what is going to happen to reactive hardeners? Will they still maintain the same level of resists? If so it will certainly make it an interesting choice now between a DC and a reactive hardener for armour ships now. I'm thinking RHs are going to become the new DCs for armour fits as long as the ship can handle the capacitor drain. Adding in variations of RHs would be nice, it is about time we had a T2 version. ENAM would be better than a reactive hardener. Since the RH adjusts each cycle to damage taken during the previous cycle. Really only works if you're taking constant consistent damage, so pve mainly. ENAM gives you that nice, reliable, flat bonus with the same fitting requirements as a DCII. A RH is superior to an EANM after the second EANM. So it only takes 3 slots now instead of 4 before a RH becomes viable. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:33:08 - [120] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Globby wrote: the whines and cries still haven't stopped. Well, you keep posting. NCdot just ran 50+ invulnerable jumpfreighters between jita and their new staging. Hauling is too easy already.

exiik Shardani Terpene Conglomerate 44	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:33:33 - [121] - Quote please buff loot from all anomalies and missions, because now worth DC, neuts,web,scram and few other modules have very low price... profit from looting going to be much reduced... sry for my English :-(
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 915	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:37:55 - [122] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Aiwha wrote: Globby wrote: the whines and cries still haven't stopped. Well, you keep posting. NCdot just ran 50+ invulnerable jumpfreighters between jita and their new staging. Hauling is too easy already. Maybe you're just not dedicated enough to nail them? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 296	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:39:52 - [123] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Why don't you throw around some numbers showing that this changes nothing. Y'know, kinda like you did when they buffed the wrecks.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:41:05 - [124] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:42:23 - [125] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: There's no point in fighting carebears any more when CCP is fighting for them. The only way to fight CCP is to unsub. whats the problem? warr akini pushed for wreck hp increase to ccp via csm , for 'reasons' , got what he wanted, ie guaranteed freighter loot from hisec ganks. no complaints from gankers . now ccp give said freighters a hp boost , makes logical sense to me. ps can i have your stuff?
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 17	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:45:48 - [126] - Quote 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. 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. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:48:55 - [127] - 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
Sugilite Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 29	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:50:04 - [128] - Quote Keep it an active module. One that can potentially be turned off by neuts or forgotten about after jumping thru a gate (totally didn't notice someone turned mine off the other day, d'oh.) It's interesting at least the one trank module you have to sort of pay attention to in a buffer tank. Or is the goal to make it a better EANM that's required on everything?
Mark Marketson Ravens Of Faith and Light 3	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:52:58 - [129] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Black Pedro wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, I'm not sure freighters need to be any safer, but at least I am glad you are now on record saying that you "like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking". History has shown that has not been your development stance in the past, but I will now know not to worry too much if another nerf to suicide ganking is announced as a buff will be right around the corner. I'm sure that they are aware how skewed things are towards gankers. While not the ultimate solution, this change at least shows that the guys in development are aware of the need to balance the field somewhat, so I'm looking forward to future changes of looting (and maybe even bumping) mechanics. Also, very interesting change overall. It is an interesting change - it will shake up ship balance everywhere which is always a good thing. But didn't you read what the man wrote? They like to pair buffs and nerfs when it comes to suicide ganking. And changes to looting or bumping that nerf the activity of suicide ganking will come with corresponding buffs for the gankers. Conversly, this change is being made to balance out the benefits of easier looting that gankers are currently enjoying courtesy of CCP's last change. Nothing stays the same - ships, modules, and mechanics can and do change. But suicide ganking isn't going away. Freighters are still going to regularly explode after this change and will after any hypothetical changes to looting or bumping. I see no evidence that CCP thinks things are "skewed" in any way - more like things are working pretty much as intended as Fozzie said above. If they do, they certainly keeping secret about it and moving at a glacial pace. I think that may just be a case of wishful thinking on your part. You're dumb. Wreck shooting was an unstoppable mechanic done by 1 guy. Freighter ganking is easy to stop if you bring the same amount of people as the gankers. What exactly prevents your from popping the thrasher before it shoots the wreck?
El Space Mariachi Leather Club Paisti Syndicate 200	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:53:44 - [130] - Quote DON'T THINK I DON'T SEE YOUR 'RADICAL' DAMAGE CONTROL CPU NERF YOU CONNIVING JERK FOZZIE I HATE YOU SO GOD DAMN MUCH gay gamers for jesus

Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 916	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:54:52 - [131] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
El Space Mariachi Leather Club Paisti Syndicate 200	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:56:24 - [132] - Quote really though I like the EHP nerf from damage controls but I question the wisdom of the flat 33% hull resist to compensate. Ship EHP creep is already a problem in this game if you ask me and I'd rather see DCUs have their efficacy reduced rather than just their importance. This slew of (useful) drone officer modules is a good call though and may validate the existence of drone officers more, which is good. gay gamers for jesus
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2917	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:56:38 - [133] - Quote damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:56:50 - [134] - Quote [/quote] What exactly prevents your from popping the thrasher before it shoots the wreck?[/quote] effort
Mark Marketson Ravens Of Faith and Light 4	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:57:51 - [135] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: if miniluv and code are feeling the pinch isk wise , then perhaps not targetting empty freighters for lols might help a bit. just sayin... AFK is AFK. If you are careless, you should be punished - severely. It's what makes EvE, EvE. It should be viable and practical to be the agents of enforcing risk. Much of the entire problem with the game now is that almost nothing is risky, or that it takes a herculean amount of effort to supply a little bit of risk. Make EvE scary again, let people create risk, and it becomes exciting again. Sorry but getting infinitely bumped by a single guy while his buddies log on for the ping ain't really definition of risky or exciting gameplay. ^ this so much
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 311	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:58:48 - [136] - Quote Mark Marketson wrote: What exactly prevents your from popping the thrasher before it shoots the wreck? What a wonderful question. A 2 million ISK thrasher can sit at a ping, or bounce pings with invulnerability. No one is able to catch him as he is doing this. He then is able to warp down to the freighter that is being ganked as it is being ganked, and hold his 10 second invulnerability. During this, if the freighter dies (which it will, unless the gank fails, which means that a wreck shooter wasn't needed anyway) a wreck shooter will be able to lock, and shoot the wreck at the same time, or before anyone else can shoot him. Worst case scenario the thrasher shoots as he dies, still killing the wreck. There is no consistent counter, even with say, a dozen people trying to stop this.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:58:54 - [137] - 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
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 916	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:58:58 - [138] - Quote Rowells wrote: damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads. I'm pretty sure JF's clear 800k ehp with 3x bulkheads. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:01:02 - [139] - Quote Aiwha wrote: [quote=baltec1][quote=bigbud skunkafella] 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. So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls? good point well made. 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.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 311	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:01:14 - [140] - Quote Aiwha wrote: So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls? Is all you have to do to get something buffed to kill it over and over again? You fail to realize that anti-gankers have more than enough tools in their toolbox to stop, and prevent a majority of ganks, and are either too lazy, too incompetant, or too stupid to do so. (Or they might have ulterior motives, like appearing useless and crying on the forums and waiting for the developers to buff them.)

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 358	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:02:24 - [141] - Quote Rowells wrote: damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads. You're bad at maths, it's 367k to 501k (omni but the increase is the same for all damage types). 33% resistances means a 50% ehp increase.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:02:47 - [142] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:03:13 - [143] - Quote as will freighters continue to pop, tho some effort may be required in target selection, which imo is a good thing ....
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 916	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:04:12 - [144] - Quote Globby wrote: Aiwha wrote: So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls? Is all you have to do to get something buffed to kill it over and over again? You fail to realize that anti-gankers have more than enough tools in their toolbox to stop, and prevent a majority of ganks, and are either too lazy, too incompetant, or too stupid to do so. (Or they might have ulterior motives, like appearing useless and crying on the forums and waiting for the developers to buff them.) Pretty much. CODE ganking barges with no regard for profit killed profitable barge ganking. Ganking freighters with no reguard for profit is killing profitable freighter ganking. The waters have been overfished. Maybe you should go play with Rocket_X? I'm sure even when watchlists finally get nerfed he's going to be whacking supers. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:04:46 - [145] - 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
Mad Abbat Talon Swarm 33	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:05:12 - [146] - Quote 0) Why not an Amarr Navy DC control? Amarr FW LP store has no decent wide-spread modules/ships ATM and argurably the worst LP store by wide margin after introduction of RF MSE and buff of RF BCU. 1) Current "compact" DCU is Internal force field array at 17 CPU, why new "compact" is 20? 2) I whould like to see DCU with better fittings than a t2 and better Shield/Armor buff at the cost of hull hp buff. 22-23 CPU is a sweet spot between 17 and 30 (30 is bit too much in my opnion) enduring DC 15/12.5/35 @ 22 CPU ( t2/t2/"compact for hull hp)
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:05:47 - [147] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Rowells wrote: damn, obelisk goes from 367k to 447k ehp. With just 3 bulkheads. You're bad at maths, it's 367k to 501k (omni but the increase is the same for all damage types). 33% resistances means a 50% ehp increase. I used .73 instead of .63. Although I'm getting 524 now
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:05:55 - [148] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:07:35 - [149] - Quote Globby wrote: Aiwha wrote: So why are you not blaming CODE for the buffs to highsec hulls? Is all you have to do to get something buffed to kill it over and over again? You fail to realize that anti-gankers have more than enough tools in their toolbox to stop, and prevent a majority of ganks, and are either too lazy, too incompetant, or too stupid to do so. (Or they might have ulterior motives, like appearing useless and crying on the forums and waiting for the developers to buff them.) sez globby, unironically crying on the forums,,,
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 358	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:12:47 - [150] - Quote Rowells wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: You're bad at maths, it's 367k to 501k (omni but the increase is the same for all damage types). 33% resistances means a 50% ehp increase. I used .73 instead of .63. Although I'm getting 524 now Hence bad at maths.

Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 311	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:13:05 - [151] - Quote lol every response to me thus far has been "cry more" or "no you"
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17323	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:14:06 - [152] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 18	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:15:32 - [153] - Quote 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?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 916	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:15:43 - [154] - Quote Globby wrote: lol every response to me thus far has been "cry more" or "no you" Because "bring more people" will just be met with even more tears. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4960	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:16:26 - [155] - Quote Are NPCs getting the +33% hull resist buff as well? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Sasha Cohenberg Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE. 43	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:17:45 - [156] - Quote You know I'm glad that freighters are getting more ehp. My freighter convoy will now be 50% more ethical.I would like to remind everyone that Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling is the one and only ethical hauling corp in New Eden. With this 50% increase in ethics I believe We're going to raise our collateral limit to 100b.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 300	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:18:36 - [157] - Quote Globby wrote: lol every response to me thus far has been "cry more" or "no you" Are you surprised?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 300	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:19:22 - [158] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. "Bring more friends and stop whining"
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 20	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:20:20 - [159] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. as i already stated in an earlier post, if freighter wreck hp is increased from 500 hp to 15000 hp then its totally logical for freighter hp to be increased also, tho admittedly 30 x freighter hp might be a little ott
Avon Salinder Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:22:04 - [160] - Quote Doesn't matter how many hit points freighters get, mach's keep bumping 'em indefinitely. Might just take another wave of cats to take one down is all. Sure, it'll cost more to get the job done but hey, those freighter wrecks are hard to kill now. Despite this, responses seem to be either "this won't change anything, don't bother, we'll still gank everything" or "you're destroying ganking and therefore eve!1!". Comedy.

Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 12	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:22:05 - [161] - Quote 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.
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 162	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:22:07 - [162] - Quote Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. I don't understand what the problem is. Sounds like how things should work.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 423	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:25:41 - [163] - Quote 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 Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 303	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:26:18 - [164] - Quote Ganking will certainly continue. I'd be sorely dissapointed if they stopped now since it is still perfectly possible to kill freighters. One just needs 'more friends (tm)' which they - being emporium, should have no issues finding.
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4962	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:27:22 - [165] - Quote Are NPC ships also getting the +33% hull resists? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 920	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:27:22 - [166] - 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 Trump is making lowsec great again. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4298	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:31:00 - [167] - 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 represents the chance of losing a freighter if you fly it competently. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17328	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:31:51 - [168] - 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
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 303	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:33:39 - [169] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Baltec, buddy... a) bring more friends b) use more expensive ships to gank c) adapt and stop whining.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17328	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:35:54 - [170] - 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

Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5674	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:36:32 - [171] - Quote Look at some recent history, shall we: CCP introduce options for freighter pilots, so they can choose more cargo space, faster acceleration, or more EHP, or in niche cases other choices. Generally a good change - one that gave real choices with real consequences for freighter pilots. Now we see that work being undone by removing the consequences for ignoring EHP. Freighters that are competently piloted and have a suitable escort (including scouts) are already unkillable in highsec outside freak occurences. It's only the lazy, the incompetent and the greedy that can be killed at all - most of all, the fools that believe a freighter is a ship designed for solo play. CODE will adapt, I'm already brainstorming ways to do so and have several in mind. In fact I expect the week after this change goes live will be a bonanza as freighter pilots take bigger risks. The people that get screwed hardest by this are the people that produce freighters - I'd hate to have just purchased a researched Charon BPO. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Creecher Virpio Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:36:36 - [172] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:38:22 - [173] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 21	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:38:36 - [174] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. well its a damn good job that youve now got a guaranteed wreck to loot then innit ? htfu i believe is the standard response to carebear whining... would u like some cheese with that whine?
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 13	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:38:47 - [175] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: It represents the chance of losing a freighter if you fly it competently. "Competently" as in using scouts and/or webber support? That does happen, but I know for a fact that many RFF pilots fly AFK using autopilot. Oh, and they bleed like the rest of us when they are cut.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1200	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:40:59 - [176] - Quote Again with the fitting crazyness. You're KILLING newbo fits here guys. Left right and centre.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4298	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:41:21 - [177] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: It represents the chance of losing a freighter if you fly it competently. "Competently" as in using scouts and/or webber support? That does happen, but I know for a fact that many RFF pilots fly AFK using autopilot. Oh, and they bleed like the rest of us when they are cut. 'Competently' as in almost never getting ganked. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 13	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:43:36 - [178] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:44:13 - [179] - 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
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2315	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:44:40 - [180] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Yes, it does. And it's good. Because now people will be more bored in High sec and move out to Low sec or Null sec to make these boring places more interesting and exciting. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 425	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:45:37 - [181] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? 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. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:46:34 - [182] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. and whats the figures on ganking pre nerfs compared to now in numbers of ships exploding?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 923	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:46:55 - [183] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Yes, it does. And it's good. Because now people will be more bored in High sec and move out to Low sec or Null sec to make these boring places more interesting and exciting. Please. As if gankers will ever leave highsec. They'll run isk doubling before that happens. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:47:49 - [184] - 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 - [185] - 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
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore 13581	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:24 - [186] - Quote Very happy at these DC and hull changes. Even more happy at the buff to Freighters. Mainly because the anti ganking and anti CODE/Goons/whatever people who claim that ganking is too easy are about to get an abject lesson in reality like that did with the mining ship EHP buff. They think buffing like this = less ganking, when in truth it's just throwing down a gauntlet for the ganker types...resulting in MORE ganking. The tears when they realize that you can't legislate away the gankers will be epic. It's too much to hope that many of them will realize that the answer to gankers already exist in games, they are called brains.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:32 - [187] - 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
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 14	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:49 - [188] - Quote 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.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:51 - [189] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. some risk inserted for extended bumping of freighters would of course help address this issue.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 923	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:51:52 - [190] - Quote 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI

bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:53:23 - [191] - Quote 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:53:50 - [192] - 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
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:54:47 - [193] - Quote The last ice interdiction happened 4 years ago. that didnt answer my question btw
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1200	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:54:59 - [194] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Very happy at these DC and hull changes.. Right up until you try and undock anything with an IFFA on it today They've went nuts with the fitting increases, here and on the disruptors (+21 to some of them ) I pity the poor bastards with imperfect skills since even guys with perfecct ones needed the IFFA regularly. I'll have to revisit nearly EVERY ship in my goddamned hanger as a result of these changes. The direction of the changes is good...the fitting hits? Oh god no.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26984	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:15 - [195] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. This is ******* idiotic and completely lacks any logical coherence. Please present an argument why freighters need to be harder to kill before making them harder to kill. If you want to maintain the ganking balance, what equally idiotic nerf are you going to give the freighters to make them more susceptible to attacks? If you're not going to nerf them in any way to retain any semblance of balance, can you at least explain the purpose behind this one-sided blanket buff? Revert this change and try again when you can think up something less moronic. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5674	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:41 - [196] - 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. I certainly make a lot out of buying goods in one place in high then selling them in another. I just don't share much of that with the useful idiots that do courier work. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:51 - [197] - 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
412nv Yaken The Conference Elite CODE. 355	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:54 - [198] - Quote Cant wait to login after this patch and still dunk on freighters. Remember you cant patch stupid and the code is forever :P. The patches for freighters fitting bulkheads was suppose to be the end of code and ganking but we are still here, I also find it funny that they think ganking is unbalanced because of a freighter wreck buff. The fact is freighter pilots who fly solo in an MMORPG packed full of stuff deserve to die and it goes to show the squeaking wheel gets the most love. A True Champion of High Security Space
Captain Campion Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North 13	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:57:05 - [199] - Quote I've been wishing for passive damage controls for years, thanks ccp. Also excited about the possibility of not fitting one at all, we'll see how that goes.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:57:57 - [200] - Quote 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?

Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 924	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:58:16 - [201] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: 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. I certainly make a lot out of buying goods in one place in high then selling them in another. I just don't share much of that with the useful idiots that do courier work. I group that sort of thing with market pvp vs just plain hauling. You're taking on the increased risk of general market instability. Not my cup of tea. I prefer trying to keep my nerds productive and happy. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5674	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:58:24 - [202] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: It represents the chance of losing a freighter if you fly it competently. "Competently" as in using scouts and/or webber support? That does happen, but I know for a fact that many RFF pilots fly AFK using autopilot. Oh, and they bleed like the rest of us when they are cut. Some form of combat escort should be the absolute norm when moving a freighter around, even with just a cheap load like 90m units of Trit. Hell when at war I use a scout to move an Ishtar through high. An Ishtar is a tenth of the price of a freighter full of trit, and a fiftieth the price of a freighter full of PI mats. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:59:04 - [203] - 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
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 924	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:59:21 - [204] - Quote 412nv Yaken wrote: it goes to show the squeaking wheel gets the most love. If that were the cease, gankers would get everything they wanted. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 14	Posted - 2016.02.11 23:59:52 - [205] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You are removing my playstyle. You mean I don't accept your playstyle being forced on me.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:01:08 - [206] - 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
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 924	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:01:48 - [207] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. How many haulers do they have? If every one of them ran an afktar they'd probably make double that easily. Take the goon out of CFC, can't take the CFC out of goons I suppose. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:02:16 - [208] - 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
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 425	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:04:23 - [209] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Yes low sec and to some degree null sec aren't that great as most people use jump freighters (which is why I wish they followed through with reducing the JF range to 5LY), although you can make good isk ganking transports travelling through wormholes. People who want to stay in high sec are always going to stay in high sec though no matter how much you gank their mining barge or kill their freighter. I know you can make good ISK from it but I don't see the point myself as it is much like shooting at fish in a barrel. And as someone else pointed out, it is not as though those high sec haulers or miners are making much ISK anyway. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:04:48 - [210] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. hmmm, i call bullshit . https://eveskunk.com/e/357863050 . also last ice interdiction was 2.5 years ago https://www.themittani.com/news/cfc-announces-caldari-ice-interdiction. anyway, my question was ;what are the numbers pre nerf compared to now in relation to ships exploding ? u got an answer?

bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 23	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:06:04 - [211] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. lol, try telling that to the freighter pilots you pop every day....
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 924	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:06:29 - [212] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Oh! Damn! I got a good one for this! Might you say they're... Ruining your game? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 14	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:06:31 - [213] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Right now I am the only one having someone elses playstyle forced upon me. Man, a ganker's life sure is tough. Sorry, I can't seem to find a clean hankie to offer...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26984	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:07:49 - [214] - Quote 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Messenger Of Truth Butlerian Crusade 35	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:08:48 - [215] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 927	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:10:23 - [216] - Quote IF CCP were removing ganking they would just disable combat outside of duels. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Makoto Priano Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium 8044	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:11:43 - [217] - Quote Fozzie; Would it be worthwhile or interesting to provide factional damage controls that shift the armor/shield bonus? For instance, an Imperial Navy one with 19% armor/10% shield, and a Caldari Navy one with 18% shield/12% armor? I notice there's a bit of variance between shield and armor resistances, so used the Brynn's and IFFA for seed numbers, just as an example. Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:12:54 - [218] - Quote 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?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 927	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:13:13 - [219] - Quote Makoto Priano wrote: Fozzie; Would it be worthwhile or interesting to provide factional damage controls that shift the armor/shield bonus? For instance, an Imperial Navy one with 19% armor/10% shield, and a Caldari Navy one with 18% shield/12% armor? I notice there's a bit of variance between shield and armor resistances, so used the Brynn's and IFFA for seed numbers, just as an example. I've always viewed that as the DC becoming more effective the more trouble you're in. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17329	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:14:13 - [220] - 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

bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:15:52 - [221] - Quote 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17333	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:15:55 - [222] - 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
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26988	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:16:26 - [223] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: you mean like warr akini suggested a wreck hp increase , thus nerfing ag effective counter against hisec freighter ganking perhaps? No. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:18:26 - [224] - Quote 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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17333	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:18:40 - [225] - 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
Sasha Cohenberg Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE. 44	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:18:47 - [226] - 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? Big Bud If I anti-ganked for a day I could show you how the chairman can save pretty much every freighter.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:20:23 - [227] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. what are the numbers in relation to the amount of ships exploding due to criminal activity in hisec pre nerf and now? edit, just saw your response above. any cursory look at killboard data will show that currently hisec ganking is alive and well. code + miniluv explode trillions of isk in ganks , so i really don't accept your argument, sorry.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26988	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:21:21 - [228] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: to coin a phrase, color me surprised I colour you incomprehensible instead, since your comment made no sense in relation to what you quoted. No. I did not mean whatever you said; I meant what I said. If you don't understand what I said, you should ask rather than try to put words in my mouth. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Sophia Soprano The Conference Elite CODE. 4	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:24:32 - [229] - 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? heres your answer - http://puu.sh/n4Ac3/51d50c0218.png Learn to stop ganks before trying to be high and mighty on the forums
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17333	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:24:33 - [230] - 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

Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1200	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:25:21 - [231] - Quote 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?
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 313	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:27:14 - [232] - Quote No, the ganking sperging has to be everywhere because CCP can't leave it alone. Carebears whine until things get changed, and if gankers remained silent they would eventually be unable to continue to gank. If CCP would just leave the situation be and force the anti-gankers to actually learn to play the game then maybe this wouldn't be such a hot button topic.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:27:41 - [233] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. some risk inserted for extended bumping of freighters would of course help address this issue. Flying untanked battleships is not a risk? Ships with less ehp than the freighters we kill and worth about as much. What you are saying is that high sec is too safe? I concur.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26989	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:28:11 - [234] - 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? Why shouldn't the results of an ill-conceived changed be discussed in the feedback thread for that change? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1096	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:28:17 - [235] - Quote So ships that fit a DCII after this patch will have 1 - (1 - 0.33)(1 - 0.4) = 0.598 or 59.8% hull resist. Loss of 0.2% hull resist is just unacceptable. CCPls. Nah, just kidding. Interesting change, though. It's a pretty blatant nerf to ganking that goes way beyond compensating for the wreck change. I don't personally gank so I don't really care that much, but it's just another nerf in a long line of them.
Alexis Nightwish 405	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:29:48 - [236] - Quote This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness! However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17333	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:30:06 - [237] - 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.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:30:08 - [238] - Quote Sasha Cohenberg wrote: 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? Big Bud If I anti-ganked for a day I could show you how the chairman can save pretty much every freighter. no need to now bud, miniluv are hanging up their hats due to lack of catas apparently...
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 913	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:33:58 - [239] - Quote Why don't you just remove suicide ganking altogether? Might as well. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Caroline Grace Retrostellar Boulevard 686	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:35:59 - [240] - Quote 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 I'm Caroline Grace, and this is my favorite spaceship in the Citadel.

bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 24	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:36:44 - [241] - Quote k, swimming pool required, im fresh outta buckets... + 1 for dc tiericide
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 914	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:36:53 - [242] - 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 Just one more nerf. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:38:27 - [243] - 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.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:40:55 - [244] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. I'm pretty sure more freighters die in low, null or to wardecks than to ganking. Maybe she's just stoked she can get her freighter to rancer without getting ganked?
Alexis Nightwish 405	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:41:39 - [245] - Quote Querns wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Mai Khumm wrote: Berry Nice wrote: So let me get this straight: Wreck shooting in highsec (mostly of freighers) was a very cheap, (less than 2 mil isk per thrasher) nearly impossible to counter method of destroying tens to hundreds of billions of loot. Fixing this to at least require more than 2 million (doable with 70 million now) was absolutely the right call. But now freighters are (on top of previous EHP buffs over the years, and the addition of bulkheads) gained another 12-30% EHP no matter how they are fit. Are you saying you fixing a broken mechanic (which only appeared in the last 3 months anyway) caused you to want to increase the EHP of freighters? edit: let me say this A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Good... Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You Should need 4-5 Billion to pop a ship in Highsec that's worth 8-9 Billion. Risk vs. Reward Freighters are only worth 1.something billion. JFs are less than 7. 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. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 914	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:42:37 - [246] - Quote 50% ehp buff to hull though, damn. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:46:25 - [247] - 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
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 139	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:46:53 - [248] - Quote Normally I don't like things that make ships dying harder, but since CODE & friends are vomiting up such a froth of salty anguish I'll allow it. I also echo the naming of the Syndicate DCU to 'Poitot'. Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
Pix Severus Empty You 2962	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:48:35 - [249] - Quote Without risk there is no excitement, no danger, and no point to EVE. This is yet another step towards removing risk from highsec, and turning EVE into a generic risk-free MMO with designated PvE and PvP zones. We're on a slippery slope here, and it won't take much more to reach the bottom. I will not support a change that leads to EVE becoming compartmentalised, and ultimately boring. My lord.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26989	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:50:06 - [250] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:54:33 - [251] - 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? Miniluv makes 0 profit. Any loot we get goes back into ganking. We have a lot of months where we run a deficit. That means after thousands and thousands of hours of playing this terrible game we made negative isk. Before facturing in the cost of gankers having to plex their accounts. If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 930	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:57:11 - [252] - Quote Tippia wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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 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. A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 139	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:57:18 - [253] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Are you high? He has the raw numbers straight from the server. Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:57:54 - [254] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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 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. A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. Even with passive shield recharge?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 00:59:39 - [255] - 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 - [256] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Even with passive shield recharge? You have to beat 10hp/s
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 915	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:01:28 - [257] - Quote At least nerf the JF hull ehp so that they are killable. Because after this buff bulk anshars won't really be killable. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26990	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:01:30 - [258] - Quote Aiwha wrote: A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GÇªin 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Caroline Grace Retrostellar Boulevard 686	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:02:01 - [259] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Jin Kugu wrote: I'm pretty sure more freighters die in low, null or to wardecks than to ganking. Maybe she's just stoked she can get her freighter to rancer without getting ganked? ...what? No idea what are you talking about, but I was talking about freighters in hisec. I'm Caroline Grace, and this is my favorite spaceship in the Citadel.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:05:59 - [260] - 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?

Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:06:00 - [261] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GÇªin 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:06:21 - [262] - Quote Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Are you high? He has the raw numbers straight from the server. Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:07:06 - [263] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: 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? Miniluv makes 0 profit. Any loot we get goes back into ganking. We have a lot of months where we run a deficit. That means after thousands and thousands of hours of playing this terrible game we made negative isk. Before facturing in the cost of gankers having to plex their accounts. If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. 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)?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:07:13 - [264] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GÇªin 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.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:07:59 - [265] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GÇªin 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. :stonk:
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 337	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:08:32 - [266] - Quote Pix Severus wrote: Without risk there is no excitement, no danger, and no point to EVE. This is yet another step towards removing risk from highsec, and turning EVE into a generic risk-free MMO with designated PvE and PvP zones. We're on a slippery slope here, and it won't take much more to reach the bottom. I will not support a change that leads to EVE becoming compartmentalised, and ultimately boring. 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.... "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:08:40 - [267] - 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 - [268] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:10:32 - [269] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: A rifter can solo a JF given enough time. GÇªin 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. Whatever you say luckbear. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 309	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:13:24 - [270] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Are you high? He has the raw numbers straight from the server. Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? If they want to? Are you seriously asking this question??

Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:13:25 - [271] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17334	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:16:37 - [272] - 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.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 29	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:18:32 - [273] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Are you high? He has the raw numbers straight from the server. Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? If they want to? Are you seriously asking this question?? Yes, I would love to be proven wrong but I'm sure ccp has no idea how much freighter ganking makes. I know that because otherwise they wouldn't be doing this.
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 367	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:19:07 - [274] - Quote I am excited about these changes, but I am really worried about adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. I think it is too high. Putting the issue of freighter/ganking aside, there are a lot of extremely strong PVP fits currently which do not utilize a damage control, and adding a base hull resist gives them a much more powerful tank. Here are some very common pvp fits which do not use a damage control: Kiting slicers, kiting tristans, Jackdaw fits with 2 BCs, Flycatcher fits using 1 BC, pure armor tanking ships that do not often fit a DC such as are common on the Enyo, Retribution, Punisher, Maller, and so on. All of these fits and some others are powerful right now, and getting an added base hull resist makes them quite a bit more tanky. My suggestion would be to only add a 10-20% base hull resist, or to have tech 1 ships have a base hull resist of 10% and tech 2 ships have a base resist of 20%. 33% across the board is probably just too high.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:19:31 - [275] - Quote 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26990	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:21:14 - [276] - Quote Aiwha wrote: That's ******. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of ISK tanking as a concept. Quote: The entire point of CONCORD is to make killing random ships in highsec risk]. No. The point of CONCORD in its various forms is that it ensures that aggression comes at a cost, be it in ISK or in assets. Quote:** 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. No. That's called ISK-tanking and is one of the most horribly fucktarded failures of game balancing possible. The cost of a ship should at no point have any relation whatsoever to how much you have to spend to kill it. If such a connection exists, the game is inherently and irreparably unbalanced and needs to have the connecting mechanic removed, immediately. Only then can the game be repaired and restored to any semblance of balance. A ship that cost 7bn must be killable by a ship that costs a tiny tiny fraction, or you will end up with a WoW-style level system where lower levels are prohibited from being effective against higher levels, and where higher levels are immune for no sane or sensible reason other than that they are a higher level. Only in this case, the GÇ£levelGÇ¥ is cost. This is very similar to a classic P2W setup. The sheer lunacy of such a system becomes very apparent if you turn the table. Ok, so a 1.2bn ship should be safe from a 100M shipGÇª but then, a 12bn ship should be able to utterly annihilate scores of 1.2bn ships without even breaking a sweat. An Etana must be untouchable by CONCORD; a Sin must be able to solo a Fenrir; a Tribal Tempest must be able to instagib a JF. Arguing that cost should be a factor means you must accept the other side of that coin, and I highly doubt that anyone is willing to actually do so. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17337	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:21:18 - [277] - 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.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:32 - [278] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Are you high? He has the raw numbers straight from the server. Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? If they want to? Are you seriously asking this question?? Yes, I would love to be proven wrong but I'm sure ccp has no idea how much freighter ganking makes. I know that because otherwise they wouldn't be doing this. If CCP can't know, how tf would you know?
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 29	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:35 - [279] - Quote Rowells wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. A couple hundred bil is nothing for 5 years of day in, day out playing this game. Let's say miniluv plays this game for about 200 manhours a day, a low estimate. If they ran incursions they would make about 600 bil a month. 600 bil profit in 1 month compared to 5 years.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1067	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:42 - [280] - Quote So just out of curiousity, does the Golem now get 3 or 4 more lowslots so that hull tanking is even between all marauders? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17337	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:58 - [281] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:24:00 - [282] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: That's ******. Welcome to the fundamental flaw of ISK tanking as a concept. Quote: The entire point of CONCORD is to make killing random ships in highsec risk]. No. The point of CONCORD in its various forms is that it ensures that aggression comes at a cost, be it in ISK or in assets. Quote:** 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. No. That's called ISK-tanking and is one of the most horribly fucktarded failures of game balancing possible. The cost of a ship should at no point have any relation whatsoever to how much you have to spend to kill it. If such a connection exists, the game is inherently and irreparably unbalanced and needs to have the connecting mechanic removed, immediately. Only then can the game be repaired and restored to any semblance of balance. A ship that cost 7bn must be killable by a ship that costs a tiny tiny fraction, or you will end up with a WoW-style level system where lower levels are prohibited from being effective against higher levels, and where higher levels are immune for no sane or sensible reason other than that they are a higher level. Only in this case, the GÇ£levelGÇ¥ is cost. This is very similar to a classic P2W setup. The sheer lunacy of such a system becomes very apparent if you turn the table. Ok, so a 1.2bn ship should be safe from a 100M shipGÇª but then, a 12bn ship should be able to utterly annihilate scores of 1.2bn ships without even breaking a sweat. An Etana must be untouchable by CONCORD; a Sin must be able to solo a Fenrir; a Tribal Tempest must be able to instagib a JF. Arguing that cost should be a factor means you must accept the other side of that coin, and I highly doubt that anyone is willing to actually do so. As I said, a rifter can easily take a JF or any larger expensive ship if it has the time. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 139	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:25:02 - [283] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? Are you seriously implying a CCP employee doesn't have access to sale logs, killmail logs, bounty logs? Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:25:22 - [284] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Care to link the 10 trillion in minerals that we're spent on that beast luckbear? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26990	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:26:17 - [285] - Quote Aiwha wrote: As I said, a rifter can easily take a JF or any larger expensive ship if it has the time. GÇªexcept that, as mentioned, it can't. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 29	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:26:46 - [286] - Quote Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? Are you seriously implying a CCP employee doesn't have access to sale logs, killmail logs, bounty logs? I'm implying ccp doesn't have the tools to make sense out of that data.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 931	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:27:38 - [287] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: As I said, a rifter can easily take a JF or any larger expensive ship if it has the time. GÇªexcept that, as mentioned, it can't. You can't do more than 10dps in a rifter? Did you do the tutorial up to the "skill-queue" part? That's important. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 139	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:29:16 - [288] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: I'm implying ccp doesn't have the tools to make sense out of that data. Tools mentally or physically? I can probably guess which one you think they don't have. Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26998	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:30:35 - [289] - Quote Aiwha wrote: You can't do more than 10dps in a rifter? You have 20 seconds to chew through 32k EHP. Kindly show the Rifter fit that is capable of doing so. I can tell you right now, 10 DPS will not cut it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:31:38 - [290] - Quote 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. Quote: Globby > Seeing as how the majority of the assets I stole were doing nothing but currently collecting dust, and also knowing that Warr Akini is rich and has the means to generate isk, I don't think it will have a long lasting impact. Miniuv doesn't need assets, it needs active FCs and leadership pushing fleets out to generate membership. Ganking itself is a profitable activity even if you're bad at it. I think Burn Jita will go just fine in the next couple of months, and I've even volunteered to lead Burn Jita fleets if they will have me, but probably not. Quote: [Powersv2] just think, 2 bil pooled money to start our first ganks in august 2012 and the rest we made off freighter ganks and investments. Thanks FW cashouts :^)

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17361	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:32:09 - [291] - 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.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 309	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:33:12 - [292] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? Are you seriously implying a CCP employee doesn't have access to sale logs, killmail logs, bounty logs? I'm implying ccp doesn't have the tools to make sense out of that data. So, let's get this straight... a) according to gankers (and probably you) ccp has the tools to reliably tell which subs have been lost to people losing to gankers (out of game data) but b) according to you they don't have the tools to tell how much people are making from ganking (in-game data). Your logic is out of this world, my friend.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:34:00 - [293] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? Are you seriously implying a CCP employee doesn't have access to sale logs, killmail logs, bounty logs? I'm implying ccp doesn't have the tools to make sense out of that data. you mean they can't do subtraction and addition? Explains all the bugs.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:34:27 - [294] - Quote Aiwha wrote: 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. Idk how ****** your head has to be if you think that outright isk tanking should be a thing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17361	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:34:44 - [295] - 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. Quote: Globby > Seeing as how the majority of the assets I stole were doing nothing but currently collecting dust, and also knowing that Warr Akini is rich and has the means to generate isk, I don't think it will have a long lasting impact. Miniuv doesn't need assets, it needs active FCs and leadership pushing fleets out to generate membership. Ganking itself is a profitable activity even if you're bad at it. I think Burn Jita will go just fine in the next couple of months, and I've even volunteered to lead Burn Jita fleets if they will have me, but probably not. Quote: [Powersv2] just think, 2 bil pooled money to start our first ganks in august 2012 and the rest we made off freighter ganks and investments. Thanks FW cashouts :^) None of that contradicts what I just said.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 29	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:37:08 - [296] - 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. Quote: Globby > Seeing as how the majority of the assets I stole were doing nothing but currently collecting dust, and also knowing that Warr Akini is rich and has the means to generate isk, I don't think it will have a long lasting impact. Miniuv doesn't need assets, it needs active FCs and leadership pushing fleets out to generate membership. Ganking itself is a profitable activity even if you're bad at it. I think Burn Jita will go just fine in the next couple of months, and I've even volunteered to lead Burn Jita fleets if they will have me, but probably not. Quote: [Powersv2] just think, 2 bil pooled money to start our first ganks in august 2012 and the rest we made off freighter ganks and investments. Thanks FW cashouts :^) 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:
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:37:38 - [297] - Quote baltec1 wrote: None of that contradicts what I just said. sure
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:38:24 - [298] - Quote 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: maybe you should read the rest of the paragraph. Both of them if you're feelin smart.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 933	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:40:30 - [299] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: You can't do more than 10dps in a rifter? You have 20 seconds to chew through 32k EHP. Kindly show the Rifter fit that is capable of doing so. I can tell you right now, 10 DPS will not cut it. Why the time limit? Oh, wait, its because you're afraid of lowsec. EVE is about risk and reward, the freighter pilot risks their cargo plus the cost of their ship, the ganker risks RNGesus plus the value of their ship. If you spend 1b, and the target spends 7b, that's ALL the risk on their end. Quit being a carebear and take some risks in the game. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17362	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:41:13 - [300] - Quote Rowells wrote: sure You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26998	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:42:01 - [301] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Why the time limit? Because we're talking about highsec ganking, numbnuts. Quote: If you spend 1b, and the target spends 7b, that's ALL the risk on their end. No. So we can conclude that, not only do you not understand what highsec is, you are also wholly ignorant of the concept of risk. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17362	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:42:05 - [302] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Why the time limit? This little problem called concord.
Alexis Nightwish 405	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:46:33 - [303] - Quote elitatwo wrote: So just out of curiousity, does the Golem now get 3 or 4 more lowslots so that hull tanking is even between all marauders? Nah this just makes the Kronos slightly less ***. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge* EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:46:35 - [304] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rowells wrote: sure You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation. im quoting the dudes in charge (or formally involved) with that organization.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 29	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:46:43 - [305] - Quote Rowells 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: maybe you should read the rest of the paragraph. Both of them if you're feelin smart. Never change FCON, never change. One day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be glorious.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 933	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:48:18 - [306] - Quote If you have a problem with concord, come to nullsec! There is no concord here! Or, you know, accept that ganking's inherent risk is from the fact that the profit margins are slim and based entirely on whether the loot fairy likes you or not. Option C, staying on the forums to whine is also available I suppose. Again, it requires a little more risk than humping gates in highsec, but I'm sure you guys can get there! Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:48:40 - [307] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Rowells 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: maybe you should read the rest of the paragraph. Both of them if you're feelin smart. Never change FCON, never change. One day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be glorious. protected from what? FCON loses freighters and jf on a regular basis.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27000	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:51:42 - [308] - Quote Aiwha wrote: If you have a problem with concord, come to nullsec! So you agree, then that ISK tanking is a profoundly stupid idea, seeing as how you can't think of any argument to support it. Good, that's settled then. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 309	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:52:23 - [309] - Quote 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. 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.
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 139	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:52:35 - [310] - Quote Rowells wrote: protected from what? FCON loses freighters and jf on a regular basis. Well when you have an alliance swear jar fund I guess you can loose them a lot. Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman

John E Normus New Order Logistics CODE. 725	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:57:08 - [311] - Quote Challenge accepted. Between Ignorance and Wisdom
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17365	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:57:14 - [312] - Quote Rowells wrote: baltec1 wrote: Rowells wrote: sure You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation. im quoting the dudes in charge (or formally involved) with that organization. Misquoting.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 01:57:45 - [313] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: If you have a problem with concord, come to nullsec! So you agree, then that ISK tanking is a profoundly stupid idea, seeing as how you can't think of any argument to support it, and instead point to a part of space where it has been rightly shot in the face as an example of how things should work. Good, that's settled then. Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Skyrider Deathknight SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 28	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:06 - [314] - Quote Will the compensation skills now affect the passive resist on these new damage controls?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17365	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:08 - [315] - 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:20 - [316] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. The ratio is only there is the person piloting the freighter makes a series of bad decisions. But then that's what carebears are all about, that there shouldn't be any penalties for playing the game wrong. Well, now there really aren't. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 30	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:39 - [317] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: If you have a problem with concord, come to nullsec! So you agree, then that ISK tanking is a profoundly stupid idea, seeing as how you can't think of any argument to support it, and instead point to a part of space where it has been rightly shot in the face as an example of how things should work. Good, that's settled then. Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. Then do it. Drop dreads on JFs if high sec ganking isn't your thing. e: btw we would have to spend a lot more than the value of an insured dread to kill JFs now
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:02:27 - [318] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Aiwha wrote: Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. The ratio is only there is the person piloting the freighter makes a series of bad decisions. But then that's what carebears are all about, that there shouldn't be any penalties for playing the game wrong. Well, now there really aren't. Just undocking an empty freighter in highsec isn't a bad decision. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27001	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:04:35 - [319] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. What's ridiculous about it? And you should be able to make that trade (well, actually, you'd have to make it 1:9 or so before it makes any sense), but you'd be really hard-pressed to do so because of the horrible balancing in place at the moment. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 309	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:05:26 - [320] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Lol. BTW, what happened with your 'stop whining and adapt / bring more folks / organise' attitude. I see nothing but your whines for past several pages. At least you nullbears should have no issues bringing more bodies to the field.

Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:05:30 - [321] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rowells wrote: baltec1 wrote: Rowells wrote: sure You are arguing with the corp that founded that organisation. im quoting the dudes in charge (or formally involved) with that organization. Misquoting. oh is it? I believe its quite clear what they are saying. I even linked the source for you.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:06:26 - [322] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Just undocking an empty freighter in highsec isn't a bad decision. Not escorting your billion isk capital ship is. And besides, we were talking about seven billion, not one. If it's empty, then why are you crying about the isk ratio? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:07:09 - [323] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. What's ridiculous about it? And you should be able to make that trade (well, actually, you'd have to make it 1:9 or so before it makes any sense), but you'd be really hard-pressed to do so because of the horrible balancing in place at the moment. So you won't do anything without a 1:7 edge? That's not carebearish at all. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17367	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:07:27 - [324] - Quote So why should the obelisk be getting 157,000 more ehp? What evidence is there that freighters need this kind of buff?
Tisiphone Dira WiNGSPAN Academy for Enterprising Pilots The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance 625	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:09:43 - [325] - Quote Yeah, where is my gank buff that is paired with my bowhead and orca being made redundant? Ah well, gave up ganking anyway.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27002	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:10:09 - [326] - Quote Aiwha wrote: So you won't do anything without a 1:7 edge? What GÇ£edgeGÇ¥? We're talking about ship costs here. You seem to be very confused about what that concept means. And could you answer the question? What's ridiculous about the ISK ratio? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:11:21 - [327] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: Its ridiculous because of the isk ratio. I'd trade 1b to kill 7b in a heartbeat. What's ridiculous about it? And you should be able to make that trade (well, actually, you'd have to make it 1:9 or so before it makes any sense), but you'd be really hard-pressed to do so because of the horrible balancing in place at the moment. So you won't do anything without a 1:7 edge? That's not carebearish at all. ISK doesn't matter much with a kill. People tend to forget their is a unofficial fee of skill and awareness that they must also pay, otherwise someone else pays it, and gets to have their way with you. You play it smart, and 7bil will last a very long time. You play like you unsub tomorrow, it might last you a few minutes.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:12:39 - [328] - Quote Tisiphone Dira wrote: Yeah, where is my gank buff that is paired with my bowhead and orca being made redundant? Ah well, gave up ganking anyway. fozzie says freighter wreck EHP, which means higher loot safety. But idk how you would compare the two.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:13:03 - [329] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Aiwha wrote: Just undocking an empty freighter in highsec isn't a bad decision. Not escorting your billion isk capital ship is. And besides, we were talking about seven billion, not one. If it's empty, then why are you crying about the isk ratio? Because if it dies the pilot is out 5b after insurance. If somebody is risking 5b in highsec, I expect their attackers to match that risk before they can reap any rewards. To kill bigger ships, you need more smaller ships. That's how ganking works. If this displeases you, come down and fight with the rest of us in lowsec/nullsec. You don't even have to be part of a tidi blob like mine to enjoy null, fucktons of smaller groups doing fun things out here. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17367	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:14:03 - [330] - 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.

Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2918	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:15:34 - [331] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. i never said heaps of isk. didn't mention any value at all. my initial response was to the claims of "break even" and "0 profit".
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4965	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:16:34 - [332] - Quote http://youtu.be/owzhYNcd4OM I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:19:18 - [333] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Because if it dies the pilot is out 5b after insurance. If somebody is risking 5b in highsec, I expect their attackers to match that risk before they can reap any rewards. Oh, I get it, you're crying about the already nigh invincible jump freighters. You do realize that they're supposed to die, right? Just because you spent a bunch of money on it shouldn't stop you from dying if you behave stupidly. Especially with something that is almost completely invincible anyway. Quote: To kill bigger ships, you need more smaller ships. That's how ganking works. If this displeases you, come down and fight with the rest of us in lowsec/nullsec. You don't even have to be part of a tidi blob like mine to enjoy null, fucktons of smaller groups doing fun things out here. No. Risk is supposed to exist in highsec, especially for playstyles that would otherwise have zero risk at all. Or at least it was supposed to, but then we'll see how well that works out for them in the end. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 31	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:19:57 - [334] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Lol. BTW, what happened with your 'stop whining and adapt / bring more folks / organise' attitude. I see nothing but your whines for past several pages. At least you nullbears should have no issues bringing more bodies to the field. Let me explain it to you with what happend after the exhumer buffs. The meta shifted to where everyone in a hulk or mack was so vulnerable compared to skiffs and procurers that everyone not in a skiff got ganked. Now we have ice belts full of skiffs and no more interesting gamepley around miner ganking. Miners still get ganked occasionally but there are no more ice interdictions, hulkageddons or any actually interesting stories.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27002	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:20:04 - [335] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Because if it dies the pilot is out 5b after insurance. If somebody is risking 5b in highsec, I expect their attackers to match that risk before they can reap any rewards. GÇªbut again, that just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of risk. Quote: To kill bigger ships, you need more smaller ships. That's how ganking works. GÇªand that's all well and fine as long as you don't try to enforce some idiotic ISK tanking concept to the whole affair, since that forcibly means that you have removed all balance from the game. Quote: The isk ratio is ridiculous because 1:7 fights are considered noteworthy achievements. Not really, no. It just means that one side brought expensive ships (or cargo) for some reason or another. It tells us nothing about there being any kind of problem GÇö indeed, if anything it suggests that there might be some semblance of balance there since simply having an expensive ship does not create any guarantees. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:21:50 - [336] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Aiwha wrote: Because if it dies the pilot is out 5b after insurance. If somebody is risking 5b in highsec, I expect their attackers to match that risk before they can reap any rewards. Oh, I get it, you're crying about the already nigh invincible jump freighters. You do realize that they're supposed to die, right? Just because you spent a bunch of money on it shouldn't stop you from dying if you behave stupidly. Especially with something that is almost completely invincible anyway. Quote: To kill bigger ships, you need more smaller ships. That's how ganking works. If this displeases you, come down and fight with the rest of us in lowsec/nullsec. You don't even have to be part of a tidi blob like mine to enjoy null, fucktons of smaller groups doing fun things out here. No. Risk is supposed to exist in highsec, especially for playstyles that would otherwise have zero risk at all. Or at least it was supposed to, but then we'll see how well that works out for them in the end. I know that. I've lost JF's to stupidity before. Poor descisions make for dead ships. And EVE always has risk. I'm saying that gankers need to take risks to reap rewards. You want to kill a freighter in highsec, you'd better be willing to risk a bunch of ships to do it. I understand risk fine. You don't want any of it. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:22:40 - [337] - Quote Aiwha wrote: The isk ratio is ridiculous because 1:7 fights are considered noteworthy achievements. Why should your e-honor have any reflection on game balance? Quote: If every suicide gank is 1:7 in value, there's a problem with suicide ganking. So then there isn't a problem with suicide ganking. Nevermind that how profitable it is comes down to bad choices being made on the part of the haulers, the single most lazy, effort free playstyle that exists in the MMO industry. Why should we be nerfed because people keep handing us profitable cargo? Why should deliberately playing the game badly be justification to nerf the other guy? Quote: You're riskaverse as ****. No we're not, that's just projection on your part. The risk averse are, and continue to be, the people who think that being afk in a billion isk ship should not have consequences just because it's expensive. You. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:24:34 - [338] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I know that. I've lost JF's to stupidity before. Poor descisions make for dead ships. And now it doesn't. Quote: And EVE always has risk. Highsec won't, after this. Quote: I understand risk fine. . No you don't. You think isk tanking should be how highsec works, you don't have the first clue about risk. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17371	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:26:16 - [339] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:27:10 - [340] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Aiwha wrote: The isk ratio is ridiculous because 1:7 fights are considered noteworthy achievements. Why should your e-honor have any reflection on game balance? Quote: If every suicide gank is 1:7 in value, there's a problem with suicide ganking. So then there isn't a problem with suicide ganking. Nevermind that how profitable it is comes down to bad choices being made on the part of the haulers, the single most lazy, effort free playstyle that exists in the MMO industry. Why should we be nerfed because people keep handing us profitable cargo? Why should deliberately playing the game badly be justification to nerf the other guy? Quote: You're riskaverse as ****. No we're not, that's just projection on your part. The risk averse are, and continue to be, the people who think that being afk in a billion isk ship should not have consequences just because it's expensive. You. Yeah, I don't afk in anything but a noobship or shuttle in a noobcorp. Even then I don't afk unless I'm not really concerned whether or not I get to where I need to go today. You're a highsec player whining about highsec being too risky for you. You might lose isk doing something! THATS BAD! Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27004	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:27:51 - [341] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I understand risk fine.. No. If you did, you'd very easily spot the huge risks for the ganker(s) compared to the utterly minute risks for the freighter pilot, rather than incorrectly think the opposite is true based on ship cost. Quote: You're a highsec player whining about highsec being too risky for you. You might lose isk doing something! THATS BAD! Again, you're projecting the constant whinging and demands for never-ending nerfs from a segment of AFK players onto the people who are about as far removed from those players and their opinions as one could possibly be. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16249	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:29:43 - [342] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Yeah, I don't afk in anything but a noobship or shuttle in a noobcorp. And? All I see is that you are here arguing for afk flying to be much, much safer than it presently is. Quote: You're a highsec player whining about highsec being too risky for you. Nothing of the sort. The problem is that highsec is about to get a lot less risky, not more. Quote: You might lose isk doing something! THATS BAD! The projection here is really just funny. You're the one saying that you should be safer, not I. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Very Aggressive Reacharound State War Academy Caldari State 9	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:33:45 - [343] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: What a time to be Gallente m ever since fozzie took over it's been great to fly gallente he has made it the best line of ships while nerfing minmatar and caldar.. basically he doesn't know how to play this game and does everything to make it battle ball f1 monkey as much as possible.. he'll do anything to kill kiting and good piloting. also he is secret leader of gallente militia which is why all his changes are single handedly used to destroy the caldari militia it's why they've been at tier 1 for like 3 years.
Tisiphone Dira WiNGSPAN Academy for Enterprising Pilots The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance 625	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:36:23 - [344] - Quote Rowells wrote: Tisiphone Dira wrote: Yeah, where is my gank buff that is paired with my bowhead and orca being made redundant? Ah well, gave up ganking anyway. fozzie says freighter wreck EHP, which means higher loot safety. But idk how you would compare the two. No, see this thread mentioned how the freighter wreck buff compensates for the freighter ehp nerf. Bowhead/orca being made redundant would appear to be an uncompensated nerf...
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:38:05 - [345] - Quote 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. God, if CCP turned off CONCORD for a few days, you guys would lose your marbles. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 31	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:38:39 - [346] - Quote Tisiphone Dira wrote: Rowells wrote: Tisiphone Dira wrote: Yeah, where is my gank buff that is paired with my bowhead and orca being made redundant? Ah well, gave up ganking anyway. fozzie says freighter wreck EHP, which means higher loot safety. But idk how you would compare the two. No, see this thread mentioned how the freighter wreck buff compensates for the freighter ehp nerf. Bowhead/orca being made redundant would appear to be an uncompensated nerf... Not to mention that moving concord became a whole lot more difficult when they nerfed hyperdunking.
ValentinaDLM Khushakor Clan Of Questionable Repute 881	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:41:38 - [347] - Quote ITT delicious ganker tears over the fact they need to get a few more catalysts or talos. 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.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 31	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:41:52 - [348] - 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. God, if CCP turned off CONCORD for a few days, you guys would lose your marbles. What are you talking about? Anyway, removing concord would remove ganking.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16250	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:42:12 - [349] - Quote Aiwha wrote: AFK flying is unsafe as it always has been. No it isn't. It's demonstrably more safe now than it ever has been before, and it's about to get a whole lot safer. Quote: Gankers are throwing a shitfit because they can't stand risk. Do you think that if you repeat this lie often enough, it will stop being a lie? Or do you really totally discount the decade of tears from haulers who think they should have even less risk in their functionally risk free gameplay? The problem is that sloppy, lazy gameplay is already too safe, and it's about to get a lot safer. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17372	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:42:31 - [350] - 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?

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16250	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:44:13 - [351] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? Well duh. Because that chance isn't zero, and because the poor afk carebear spent so much isk on it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17372	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:44:19 - [352] - 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.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27005	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:48:05 - [353] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Highsec is getting a little less risky for freighter pilots, a little more risky for gankers. No. Highsec is getting a lot less risky for freigther pilots (and it's already close to zero risk), and a fair bit more risky for gankers because their costs go up. This is supposed to be balanced against the increased odds of keeping the loot, but isn't really, and there's nothing to counterbalance the massive risk reduction on the freighter side. Quote: Gankers are throwing a shitfit because they can't stand risk. Hence, this thread. No. Gankers are rightfully being annoyed that they're on the receiving end of yet another nerf for no apparent reason. Some of us freighter pilots are also annoyed because we're being handed a ridiculous buff for no apparent reason. This thread is about presenting that buff and asking for feedback on it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 934	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:54:21 - [354] - Quote ValentinaDLM wrote: ITT delicious ganker tears over the fact they need to get a few more catalysts or talos. 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. Yeah, but that's the sort of thing you need to test/play with on sisi. Especially when paired with the point re-balance. The frig meta kind of just got thrown in the blender. (Mr.Hyde strikes before he's even on the CSM) Can't say I'm going to miss scram kiting frigates though. I prefer a straight brawl. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Stalker Ofeveryone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:58:24 - [355] - Quote To the kids saying "ganking is over, it's safe to autopilot in a freighter" - go for it. People made the same claims when low and rig slots were released for freighters.... They're still ganked every day. The more EDP ships get, the more we'll throw at a target.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 938	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:00:19 - [356] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Aiwha wrote: AFK flying is unsafe as it always has been. No it isn't. It's demonstrably more safe now than it ever has been before, and it's about to get a whole lot safer. Quote: Gankers are throwing a shitfit because they can't stand risk. Do you think that if you repeat this lie often enough, it will stop being a lie? Or do you really totally discount the decade of tears from haulers who think they should have even less risk in their functionally risk free gameplay? The problem is that sloppy, lazy gameplay is already too safe, and it's about to get a lot safer. I don't have to lie, this entire thread has been 90% gankers whining about having to undock a few more Talos. Its like the CODE AT ragequit on steroids. The people really suffering are those trying to give feedback on the actual meta implications of ships no longer needing to fit a DCU. Which I'm guilty of too, but ganker tears are just a little too delicious. I assume the thread will get trimmed and their stuff will get back to the devs though. :tinfoil: "Highsec is 100% safe for freighters" is a false flag to lull people into a false sense of security! Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1876	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:00:28 - [357] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: Highsec is getting a little less risky for freighter pilots, a little more risky for gankers. No. Highsec is getting a lot less risky for freigther pilots (and it's already close to zero risk), and a fair bit more risky for gankers because their costs go up. This is supposed to be balanced against the increased odds of keeping the loot, but isn't really, and there's nothing to counterbalance the massive risk reduction on the freighter side. Quote: Gankers are throwing a shitfit because they can't stand risk. Hence, this thread. No. Gankers are rightfully being annoyed that they're on the receiving end of yet another nerf for no apparent reason. Some of us freighter pilots are also annoyed because we're being handed a ridiculous buff for no apparent reason. This thread is about presenting that buff and asking for feedback on it. The people who really suffer from this are competent freighter pilots. It only benefits freighter pilots who were bad enough to get ganked in the first place. Increasing the gank threshold reduces the number of situations where a competent freighter pilot will skate by, but an incompetent one will not, reducing the skill gap between the good pilot and the bottom 0.1% of bads. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 228	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:04:31 - [358] - Quote My biggest question after reading this, and digging through forum posts, is this: What do you hope to achieve with this update? What does it really do for us? Aside from being a make-work project, with the potential for breaking some very well-established and not-at-all-problematic game mechanics, why change this (and is the reason good enough to justify going through with it).
Gorion Wassenar Stimulus Rote Kapelle 141	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:05:09 - [359] - Quote 100% Tidi lag fests require more input than AFK hisec indy ganking. Don't kid yourselves into thinking what you are doing even scratches the surface of pvp. Rote Kapelle - NOW IN SLIGHTLY MORE LAW ABIDING FLAVOR! "DRINK STARSI!" -¬-«GäóOwnership Group Chairman
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 938	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:05:16 - [360] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: 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. God, if CCP turned off CONCORD for a few days, you guys would lose your marbles. What are you talking about? Anyway, removing concord would remove ganking. Yeah, because gankers wouldn't undock. Most highsec people wouldn't either, but there's a reason they're in highsec. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16250	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:06:18 - [361] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I don't have to lie, this entire thread has been 90% gankers whining about having to undock a few more Talos. Still lying again. That isn't why people dislike this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27007	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:08:04 - [362] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I don't have to lie So why are you doing it then? Quote: this entire thread has been 90% gankers whining about having to undock a few more Talos. Demonstrably false. Quote: The people really suffering are those trying to give feedback on the actual meta implications of ships no longer needing to fit a DCU. No-one is suffering because of that, and aside from the gleeful trolling from you and some other people who crave absolute safety, everyone else is actually providing feedback on the implications of this moronic and laughably unbalanced change. Quote: Yeah, because gankers wouldn't undock. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Stalker Ofeveryone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:12:21 - [363] - Quote Where are all these 'ganker tears'? I'm just seeing pubbies agreeing with themselves back and forth that that there are 'tears', but no said angry comments. I'll say it again, we'll continue to gank like normal. 90% of my mining ganks don't even have DCU's fit...
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 938	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:13:32 - [364] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: My biggest question after reading this, and digging through forum posts, is this: What do you hope to achieve with this update? What does it really do for us? Aside from being a make-work project, with the potential for breaking some very well-established and not-at-all-problematic game mechanics, why change this (and is the reason good enough to justify going through with it). The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships. The first bit of fitting advice most people get is "fit a DCU". DCU's are ridiculously good, and a must have for so many pvp fits. By halving the amount of resists they give as a module, and just building it into the ships hull, it makes choosing to fit or not to fit a DCU in favor of another damage mod, or a more specialized tank mod (for example, an ENAM) much more viable. Any fit that didn't fit a DCU before gets a buff, any ship that fit it before loses... I think its like .2% of their ehp. So that's really only a nerf to solo. (I'm so sorry solo DCU users) Pair this up with the scram re-balance and the frigate meta is going to get a small shakeup. Although I don't think its going to dethrone any of the current meta picks for solo frig work at all, only change up a few fits that might have needed a DCU before the nerf. The second change, is making it passive. People have been asking for that since they made DCU's a thing. Slight nerf to neuts, but since DCU's are only going to be half as effective as before, its not really THAT big a deal. (cycling them on right after neut cycles was pretty simple anyway since it was a 1gj draw) Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 918	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:15:05 - [365] - Quote I hope you guys are ready for massive TIDI every time a freighter dies. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 938	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:15:20 - [366] - Quote Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Where are all these 'ganker tears'? I'm just seeing pubbies agreeing with themselves back and forth that that there are 'tears', but no said angry comments. I'll say it again, we'll continue to gank like normal. 90% of my mining ganks don't even have DCU's fit... Don't worry, we all know you'll still be there. That's why I keep my web alt close. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27009	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:18:40 - [367] - Quote Aiwha wrote: The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships. No. The primary beneficiary from this are ships that couldn't or often wouldn't fit DCUs and that have huge amounts of hull HP. For everyone else, it's pretty much just business as usual. The secondary beneficiary is a group of pilots who often fly AFK and who therefore get a lot extra out of a module that doesn't need to be activated. Coincidentally, there is a fair amount of cross-over between this group and the previous one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
A Research Alt Perkone Caldari State 156	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:18:48 - [368] - Quote why is it that no other ship is getting their ehp buffed with this change
Stalker Ofeveryone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:19:31 - [369] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Where are all these 'ganker tears'? I'm just seeing pubbies agreeing with themselves back and forth that that there are 'tears', but no said angry comments. I'll say it again, we'll continue to gank like normal. 90% of my mining ganks don't even have DCU's fit... Don't worry, we all know you'll still be there. That's why I keep my web alt close. Not everyone uses Web alts. After DT at Burn Jita minutes into the event there were untanked freighters undocking from Jita autopiloting. You can't patch idiots.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 940	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:20:50 - [370] - Quote Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Aiwha wrote: Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Where are all these 'ganker tears'? I'm just seeing pubbies agreeing with themselves back and forth that that there are 'tears', but no said angry comments. I'll say it again, we'll continue to gank like normal. 90% of my mining ganks don't even have DCU's fit... Don't worry, we all know you'll still be there. That's why I keep my web alt close. Not everyone uses Web alts. After DT at Burn Jita minutes into the event there were untanked freighters undocking from Jita autopiloting. You can't patch idiots. Yeah, betting on stupid isn't dumb. Or something like that. You know what I mean. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI

Stalker Ofeveryone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:22:32 - [371] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Aiwha wrote: Stalker Ofeveryone wrote: Where are all these 'ganker tears'? I'm just seeing pubbies agreeing with themselves back and forth that that there are 'tears', but no said angry comments. I'll say it again, we'll continue to gank like normal. 90% of my mining ganks don't even have DCU's fit... Don't worry, we all know you'll still be there. That's why I keep my web alt close. Not everyone uses Web alts. After DT at Burn Jita minutes into the event there were untanked freighters undocking from Jita autopiloting. You can't patch idiots. Yeah, betting on stupid isn't dumb. Or something like that. You know what I mean. Yes, even with these amazing changes. I bet you will still see ships hit with no damage control fit.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 940	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:25:13 - [372] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: The primary beneficiary of the change are your general combat ships. No. The primary beneficiary from this are ships that couldn't or often wouldn't fit DCUs and that have huge amounts of hull HP. For everyone else, it's pretty much just business as usual. The secondary beneficiary is a group of pilots who often fly AFK and who therefore get a lot extra out of a module that doesn't need to be activated. Coincidentally, there is a fair amount of cross-over between this group and the previous one. You've got a point there on the actived DCU thing. But I'm going to err on the side of "I'm really, REALLY sick of having to click it every single goddamn time I jump/bridge" Then it just sits there taking up space that I could use for something that I actually have to manage heat or capacitor draw on. Hell, the whole reason CCP made it active in the first place was because of their spaghetti code. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 27	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:25:34 - [373] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: You can't do more than 10dps in a rifter? You have 20 seconds to chew through 32k EHP. Kindly show the Rifter fit that is capable of doing so. I can tell you right now, 10 DPS will not cut it. thats not quite true if you use the not uncommon tactic of web duel scamming.
Chainsstyle Arnerette Noble Sentiments Second Empire. 4	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:25:57 - [374] - Quote No issue with ganking game play its a fair mechanic. However... the most broken thing about ganking is the toons have no consequences and can be retrained in a day or two. At least this requires a bit more dedication to a type of game play and creates choices for this game play style. It also punishes stupid freighter pilots for being lazy and bringing too much in at once by creating a viable gank target. Lets be real... as long as the target is decent and bumping is still viable.... the gankers still have an advantage... and a higher chance at achieving their rewards.
Samsa Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:32:09 - [375] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Lol. BTW, what happened with your 'stop whining and adapt / bring more folks / organise' attitude. I see nothing but your whines for past several pages. At least you nullbears should have no issues bringing more bodies to the field. Let me point out that we're already highly organized and able to pull numbers. Not because we can, but because we have to. Otherwise ganks wouldn't happen. Where can you go from there?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27010	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:33:51 - [376] - Quote Aiwha wrote: You've got a point there on the actived DCU thing. But I'm going to err on the side of "I'm really, REALLY sick of having to click it every single goddamn time I jump/bridge" That's not so much erring as just making ** up wholesale and ignoring the reality of the situation. You don't have to click it every time, and the people who fit it aren't sick of it. So no, the only ones who actually benefit are AFK:ers. Chainsstyle Arnerette wrote: However... the most broken thing about ganking is the toons have no consequences and can be retrained in a day or two. If that's the most broken thing about ganking, then ganking is in a pretty good spot, I take it? After all, neither of those supposedly broken details actually exist, which means that the most broken thing about ganking is GÇ£literally nothingGÇ¥. Quote:** Lets be real. Ok. Gankers have zero advantages that aren't handed to them on a platter by the self-selecing victims. As long as the victims can choose what to fly, where to fly, how to fly, whom to fly with, and what to carry, they are in full control of all the variables that decide not just the outcome of a gank, but the odds of one happening to begin with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 943	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:43:00 - [377] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: You've got a point there on the actived DCU thing. But I'm going to err on the side of "I'm really, REALLY sick of having to click it every single goddamn time I jump/bridge" That's not so much erring as just making **** up wholesale and ignoring the reality of the situation. You don't have to click it every time, and the people who fit it aren't sick of it. So no, the only ones who actually benefit are AFK:ers. Do you even undock? People have been complaining about DCU's being active modules since day 1. I'm one of them. Its annoying. Its also annoying that they're so necessary to so many fits. Now they're not. This is good. I'm going to enjoy having a little more freedom with my lowslots now that one isn't almost always pegged for a DCU. Even if they nerfed DCU's across the board without buffing all base hull resists I'd be pleased. News flash, highsec isn't the only place to play EVE. Most of the DCU changes are for the benefit of pvpers south of .5 sec space. The bonus EHP to freighters (and ganker tears) is just a bonus. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27013	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:51:36 - [378] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Do you even undock? Do you even have an argument? Rhetoric question GÇö you don't. That's why you have to rely on this constant use of fallacies. Quote: People have been complaining about DCU's being active modules since day 1. GÇªwhich doesn't actually change the simple fact that you don't have to click it every time or that people who fit it are sick of it. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the ones who benefit from it becoming passive are the AFK:ers. Suggesting anything else is ignorant, not a case of erring on the side of anything. Quote: News flash, highsec isn't the only place to play EVE. Most of the DCU changes are for the benefit of pvpers south of .5 sec space. No. The DCU changes make no difference for those players. In fact, most of them lose a very tiny amount of EHP from this. So that's just a convenient sales pitch that covers up the fact that the ones who actually benefit from this change are the ones who previously wouldn't and couldn't fit one GÇö doubly so if a large portion of their EHP was already in their huge piles of hull HP. Your pathetic attempts at hiding this fact is not a bonus, just moronic. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 943	Posted - 2016.02.12 03:56:34 - [379] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: Do you even undock? Do you even have an argument? Rhetoric question GÇö you don't. That's why you have to rely on this constant use of fallacies. Quote: People have been complaining about DCU's being active modules since day 1. GÇªwhich doesn't actually change the simple fact that you don't have to click it every time or that people who fit it are sick of it. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the ones who benefit from it becoming passive are the AFK:ers. Suggesting anything else is ignorant, not a case of erring on the side of anything. Quote: News flash, highsec isn't the only place to play EVE. Most of the DCU changes are for the benefit of pvpers south of .5 sec space. No. The DCU changes make no difference for those players. In fact, most of them lose a very tiny amount of EHP from this. So that's just a convenient sales pitch that covers up the fact that the ones who actually benefit from this change are the ones who previously wouldn't and couldn't fit one GÇö doubly so if a large portion of their EHP was already in their huge piles of hull HP. Your pathetic attempts at hiding this fact and being a massive troll is not a bonus, just moronic. So you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about ingame. Good. That helps anybody reading this threadnaught. Good change, longtime QOL request from pvpers, shakes up the meta for EFT warriors, makes gankers cry. A+ CCP. A+. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4965	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:00:05 - [380] - Quote The only real downside I'm getting from this discussion is that it's going to be harder to gank certain types of ships. And this is a problem exactly because...? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

John E Normus New Order Logistics CODE. 726	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:01:04 - [381] - Quote Tisiphone Dira wrote: Yeah, where is my gank buff that is paired with my bowhead and orca being made redundant? Ah well, gave up ganking anyway. I knew this day would come. I've been a lone voice of caution about this whole thing and no one would listen! All thrasher gankers eventually come to a split in the road. The easy path leads to quitting, giving up to the theme park crowd, or worse. The harder path leads back to glory and green ships with friends in fleet and highsec dominance. James 315's own gank alt fell victim to the thrasher curse and is probably still in Hek perma-logged off sitting in a damn thrasher. Now Tisi... We need to act! If you see someone gank in a thrasher, by all means congratulate them on doing the hard yards to save highsec. If you see them do multiple ganks in a thrasher convo them ASAP. Talk them down, tell them there is a better way! Together we can save this "special" breed of ganker. TIA Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27013	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:02:10 - [382] - Quote Aiwha wrote: So you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about ingame. Your reliance on fallacies just proves your complete lack of an argument, and your inability to actually address the points being made suggests that you are wholly unfamiliar with the mechanics in question. The facts remain unchallenged, and you just further prove that you're just trolling. So again, the change does one thing and one thing only: it pointlessly buffs a set of ships and pilots that are the least in need of such a buff in the entire game. For everyone else, it's a minor QoL change. You are happy because you get to troll people who can identify the negative consequences of this ill-conceived change. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Flappy Beefcurtains School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:02:57 - [383] - Quote Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you!
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 103	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:04:45 - [384] - Quote Tippia wrote: So no, the only ones who actually benefit are AFK:ers. Seriously, if you feel so strongly against AFK play, why is it no one ever asks for the removal of Auto-Pilot?
John E Normus New Order Logistics CODE. 726	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:06:00 - [385] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: Tippia wrote: So no, the only ones who actually benefit are AFK:ers. Seriously, if you feel so strongly against AFK play, why is it no one ever asks for the removal of Auto-Pilot? CODE does frequently. Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27014	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:06:40 - [386] - Quote Flappy Beefcurtains wrote: Much needed buff to freighters after the wreck hp change, thank you! How is it even remotely needed? The wreck HP change slightly readjusts the additional risks that were created by CrimeWatch 2.0. What massive nerfs to freighters have happened that warrants such a huge buff as this to counter-balance it? GetSirrus wrote: Seriously, if you feel so strongly against AFK play, why is it no one ever asks for the removal of Auto-Pilot? Big ifGÇª do you have anything to suggest that any such opposition actually exists, or is it just you making foolish asumptions? Also, what does the former have to do with the latter? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Cyrek Ohaya Blazing Sun Group 21	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:10:53 - [387] - Quote So, increased Hull hit points. Will the hull repair modules and drones be looked at soon too?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17378	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:14:51 - [388] - 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?
Mindframe Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 7	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:18:57 - [389] - Quote We've really reached the point where Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm are thrashing about on the forums complaining that high-sec is too hard for them? Bring back BoB, I want a new set of stellar overlords....
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 943	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:19:50 - [390] - Quote Tippia wrote: Aiwha wrote: So you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about ingame. Your reliance on fallacies just proves your complete lack of an argument, and your inability to actually address the points being made suggests that you are wholly unfamiliar with the mechanics in question. The facts remain unchallenged, and you just further prove that you're just trolling. So again, the change does one thing and one thing only: it pointlessly buffs a set of ships and pilots that are the least in need of such a buff in the entire game. For everyone else, it's a minor QoL change. You are happy because you get to troll people who can identify the negative consequences of this ill-conceived change. Arthur Aihaken wrote: The only real downside I'm getting from this discussion is that it's going to be harder to gank certain types of ships. And this is a problem exactly because...? GÇªit further unbalances an already insanely unbalanced part of the game and does so for no sane or sensible reason. If anything, this would be a good opportunity to rebalance those ships in the opposite direction. Ah, the fallacy fallacy. Not to be confused with my fallacy fallacy fallacy, but I digress. The point is, you don't play the game, and are dismissing outright people who do. You have no idea what you're talking about. The negative consequence is tiny. AFK freighters are slightly harder to whack. AFK DST's are slightly harder to whack (although afk' ing a DST is a waste, that overheat bonus is so amazing) Bring more people and make AFK'ers suffer enough and they won't afk anymore; Is what I'd say to somebody who actually undocked. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27016	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:31:42 - [391] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Ah, the fallacy fallacy. Nope. The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that, just because your reasoning is fallacious, the conclusion is wrong. That is not what's at play here. Rather, it's the conclusion that, since all you have to offer is fallacies, you can't have much of an argument, or you'd offer that instead GÇö a conclusion that is further reinforced by your unwillingness (or is it inability) to actually address the points being made. Quote: The point is, you don't play the game, and are dismissing outright people who do. Incorrect, and based on your previous statements, this is you projecting more than anything else. Quote: The negative consequence is tiny. Some of the safest ships in the game gaining double-digit increases in EHP in exchange for nothing is not a GÇ£tinyGÇ¥ consequence. Their getting that even when AFK (which they often are) is not a tiny consequence. Their getting that when they should be adjusted in the exact opposite direction doubles the non-tininess of the change. Quote: Is what I'd say to somebody who actually undocked. Your desperate reliance on fallacies just further proves you have no argument and are only in this thread to troll GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 948	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:40:35 - [392] - Quote The last time you bothered to undock was 2013. That's not a fallacy, that's you trying to deflect from the fact that you're not qualified to discuss anything outside of ship spinning. Trying to discredit my entire argument, which is that the EHP buff is not bad, is in itself a fallacy. Play distraction games all you want, fact is, these changes are overall good for the game, and the real problems that they present won't be apparent till we see how they affect various fits on sisi. The freighter issue is literally only an issue to lazy gankers. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27016	Posted - 2016.02.12 04:48:52 - [393] - Quote Aiwha wrote: The last time you bothered to undock was 2013. Inventing incoherent nonsense does not constitute an argument. Do you have anything to say that even remotely relates to the points being made? Quote: That's not a fallacy Yes it is. It's an ad hominem based on a conscious and intentional lie. Quote: rying to discredit my entire argument I'm not trying. I've already succeeded, with ample help from you. You can keep projecting your failures on me, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Some of the safest ships in the game are getting EHP buffs on the order of 25GÇô30%, for no particular reason. AFK:ers are being buffed, for no particular reason. Ships that already habitually have these benefits will still have to fit a module to get them, and will end up with a veeeery tiny reduction in EHP in exchange for a very tiny QoL enhancement. We already know what the effects of the changes as written are and we can already see how they will affect various fits GÇö no Sisi needed. Hence why this thread contains plenty of feedback to the effect that this change cannot sensibly happen without a lot of ships being counter-balanced in the opposite direction, especially freighters since the unwarranted buff they're getting is nothing short of insane and must be addressed before this thing goes live to not break things completely. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 951	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:09:56 - [394] - Quote 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17379	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:15:20 - [395] - 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.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27016	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:19:50 - [396] - Quote Aiwha wrote: why do you expect everybody to respect your opinion? Because I have a long history of making fact-based statements and an almost equally long history of hauling freight (safely) all over highsec. What have you done to make your continuous lies and trolling worth considering? And since you are a liar and a troll, why on earth would anyone ever be insane enough to take a chance that anything you say has any connection to reality? Quote: Your entire argument is that buffing freighter EHP will end suicide ganking. No, that's just another fallacy on your part. Quote: You're pulling ** out of your *** You're confusing me with you. You see, you aren't even able to present any kind of factual or topical arguments GÇö only lies, trolling, personal abuse, and ad hominem arguments, none of which actually serve to prove you right (or even knowledgeable) about anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. Quote:** Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. GÇªwhich is somewhere in the region of 30pp more than they should be buffed, and definitely 30% more ships than should be needed. And it happens for no good reason whatsoever, at a time when it would make more sense to go in the opposite direction. And that is not all that's happening either, so that's just yet another lie on your part. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 953	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:20:04 - [397] - Quote 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Subotai Khan Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:24:05 - [398] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 953	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:25:23 - [399] - Quote Subotai Khan wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead? Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Zappity Black Aces I N F A M O U S 2674	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:28:44 - [400] - Quote 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17380	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:31:05 - [401] - 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.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 27017	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:32:36 - [402] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again. What do you get when you multiply Gàö by 0.6? Quote: Tippia, I'm not seeing any argument from you Learn to read. Alternatively, stop lying. Then address the points being made. Quote: I think Incorrect. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Ripard Teg Snuff Box Snuffed Out 1250	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:34:42 - [403] - Quote Globby wrote: Mark Marketson wrote: What exactly prevents your from popping the thrasher before it shoots the wreck? What a wonderful question. A 2 million ISK thrasher can sit at a ping, or bounce pings with invulnerability. No one is able to catch him as he is doing this. He then is able to warp down to the freighter that is being ganked as it is being ganked, and hold his 10 second invulnerability. During this, if the freighter dies (which it will, unless the gank fails, which means that a wreck shooter wasn't needed anyway) a wreck shooter will be able to lock, and shoot the wreck at the same time, or before anyone else can shoot him. Worst case scenario the thrasher shoots as he dies, still killing the wreck. There is no consistent counter, even with say, a dozen people trying to stop this. Globby -- Globby, mind -- is arguing here that a single player should not be able to destroy a high value target. This may well be the most ironic thing written in the history of EVE. aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 953	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:35:41 - [404] - Quote 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? Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17382	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:37:01 - [405] - 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 - [406] - 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.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:43:53 - [407] - Quote Aiwha wrote: 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. I actually agree with you, in terms of ganking only the quantity of brute force needed is going to change, but the core mechanics are still there. A freighter gank is done by bumping indefinitely out of warp alignment a ship by using another high speed / mass ship, such as the machariel, while the rest of the force assemble, warp in at very close range, overheat everything and burn before concord can burn them. Due to sec status and concord mechanics, they don't all instant pop but they have enough time to kill the freighter. Now the bumping mechanics is untouched by this change, nor the concord response times, only the quantity of force needed to gank said ship is going to change. Bringing more people is going to make ganking less efficient in terms monetary return, but roleplay from code aside, ganking is already a very high reward vs cost activity, with catalysts costing 1.2 mils and taloses costing 80mils, while properly picked kill can net several billions. A very recent obelisk gank from goonswarm ganking force in high sec, on an anti tanked ship (3 cargo mods), required 16 taloses and netted a 10 billions kill mail with a 4 billions of drops. One talos, from the killmails i'm reading, cost 120 millions, making it a total of 1.9 billions cost a final net gain of almost 2 billions in drops. Considering that in a ganking fleet there's often a main and an alt, we are talking of around 220 millions gain per player. If you choose to gank in catalysts, cost is going to fall dramatically per ship used, but you'll need more or less twice the pilots, so also the net per player is going to fall. TL;DR - Net gain per ganks are going to get nerfed, not the ganks. Wreck Hull hp buff is going to make gankers more likely to scoop loot, buffing the potential gain. That's why ccp said wreck hp buff counter the overall hull passive resistence. And personal note, a very strong opinion from me now, gankers that crying from a nerf to their activity are NOT gallants! You are goofuses! Man up, tell CCP "gf", and prove hp buffs are not going to touch your game play. Quoting code. Quote: Goofus begs CCP to buff hulk EHP. Gallant tanks his ships to improve their EHP. And from this i'm going to say Goofus begs CCP to revert the hull resist buff Gallants do more dps with his ships or bring more friends Don't be goofuses, gankers.
Kyra Lee Ixian Machines TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 49	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:43:55 - [408] - Quote Lots of people complaining and counter complaining in this topic... The problem that I see here is again there is only a single M1 option. Why can we not have a compact version and a version that provides better resists but has a higher fitting cost. Give us an actual choice, more fitting room or better resists. Having a single M1 option being wholly better than the M0 and the single M5 option being wholly better than the M1 doesn't really provide the player with any options to think about. Do we want our players to think or do we want them to slap on the highest item level thing they have access to?
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 953	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:45:19 - [409] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17383	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:53:10 - [410] - 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?

Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 954	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:57:47 - [411] - Quote 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Adam Lyon Incident Command Local Is Primary 19	Posted - 2016.02.12 06:08:35 - [412] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Miniluv makes 0 profit. Any loot we get goes back into ganking. We have a lot of months where we run a deficit. That means after thousands and thousands of hours of playing this terrible game we made negative isk. Before facturing in the cost of gankers having to plex their accounts. If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Just wanted to point out how misleading this is. The reason you make 0 isk is because that's where you draw the line. PushX has made changes to their hauling such that they won't take loads over 1.5bisk because that's where the break even line is for gankers. All this does is push the line up. You'll still gank for 0 isk.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17383	Posted - 2016.02.12 06:10:51 - [413] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 954	Posted - 2016.02.12 06:23:45 - [414] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Lets stop pretending gankers go anywhere but the trade routes and choke points. Udema, Niarja, and their adjoining systems are where freighter ganks happen. Ganks elsewhere are noteworthy simply for their oddity. Your odds of being ganked depend on how many other dumb whales are rolling through there at any given time. Which is much, MUCH lower than the "2 million jumps" that you're trying to hide behind. If you're going to count EVERY jump, its closer to 22k in a single day. WHich still includes that anything that's not a freighter is going to be left alone by gank teams. (since haulers are the prey of the much smaller teams or solo gankers) The numbers don't lie. Gankers are not going away with this buff to EHP. All its doing is giving freighter pilots another 400-500m of breathing room. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Zappity Black Aces I N F A M O U S 2674	Posted - 2016.02.12 06:24:03 - [415] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Generally, only a relatively small number of players engage in any inappropriate behaviour. The fact remains that undesirable behaviour will inevitably be countered - what else can you expect? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Bester Lamont Circumlunar Zaibatsu 23	Posted - 2016.02.12 06:39:22 - [416] - Quote Make anti-ganking as obscenely profitable as ganking and balance will be restored very quickly.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 553	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:07:31 - [417] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: CCP introduce options for freighter pilots, so they can choose more cargo space, faster acceleration, or more EHP, or in niche cases other choices. Generally a good change - one that gave real choices with real consequences for freighter pilots. This was a flat freighter nerf at the time. It is not possible to get the same EHP, cargo, accel, and warp times that freighters had before the change (including the warp-speed mechanics change at about the same time). I'm not saying this was a bad change by any means, and choice is great, but don't try to obfuscate the inherent nerf the new system brought to freighter stats.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3495	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:07:39 - [418] - Quote why do the three new faction DCs have identical stats? Why not just adding one DC from one faction. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2202	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:24:50 - [419] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Generally, only a relatively small number of players engage in any inappropriate behaviour. The fact remains that undesirable behaviour will inevitably be countered - what else can you expect? I expect changes that target the "undesirable behaviour", not to negatively impact the overall game. This is a lazy change that will stifle conflict in highsec while decreasing engagement with the game by making AFK hauling even safer. It is a nerf to everyone else: it devalues hauling as a service making it even harder for active haulers to compete against the (CCP-approved autopilot-using) hauling bots, reduces demand for industrial goods (like the freighters themselves) that will no longer be lost, and raises the bar on the size of ganking groups even higher. The last obvious consequence is particularly baffling to me, as CCP just spent a huge amount of effort reducing the bar on group size to contest sov to the point where now one person can now go try to stake a claim, yet they feel the need to raise the groups size needed to even try to contest a freighter by another 20% from the dozen or two it already takes. So much for the idea a new player or small group can affect the universe. It's amusing to me that the game mechanics give me and my 10 friends a better shot at taking sov in some nullsec system than to knock over a freighter in highsec, just because we can't meet some NPC-enforced DPS check. If freighters aren't safe enough, there are plenty of other changes that could be made that would not specifically buff the laziest of them. Of course, if you look at the details you quickly find that the "good" freighter pilots are already 99.8+% safe in highsec, which begs the question why is this buff even needed in the first place? I mean, is shooting empty freighters really "undesirable behaviour" as part of your effort to enforce a protection racket, in a sandbox game where the whole point is for players to engage in such emergent game play?
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2320	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:30:34 - [420] - Quote 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: Maybe, just maybe, we should not care about 1 person burning out on the task to nurture dozens in a Multiplayer game? Maybe, just maybe, we should take this as a hint and tell warr and similar pilots to see their mistake and make more people contribute to the action instead of allowing them to merely consume what 1 other person created? Would that be too much to ask for? Probably, when it comes to CFCODE ganking. All that aside, CFC just got CCP to introduce SP trading and they already got their first untanked, unfitted, unprepared and overloaded Ark that was on its way just 4 days into the game. My educated guess is that this is going to happen a lot more often in the future because dumb and dumber can now sit in toys so early on that they have absolutely no way at all to learn how to pilot these toys properly. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Lena Lazair Sefrim 553	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:37:08 - [421] - Quote Kyra Lee wrote: Lots of people complaining and counter complaining in this topic... The problem that I see here is again there is only a single M1 option. Why can we not have a compact version and a version that provides better resists but has a higher fitting cost. Give us an actual choice, more fitting room or better resists. Having a single M1 option being wholly better than the M0 and the single M5 option being wholly better than the M1 doesn't really provide the player with any options to think about. Do we want our players to think or do we want them to slap on the highest item level thing they have access to? This has been the common theme across all tiericide. The pointlessness of the m0 version has persisted for every module category. I agree it seems stupid but CCP has applied this quite consistently and I can't imagine they'll backtrack on this now. The m6 being flat better than m5 has also happened many times but like all of the higher tier stuff, the choice here typically comes down to cost anyway, which works out reasonably well.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 553	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:39:54 - [422] - Quote Bienator II wrote: why do the three new faction DCs have identical stats? Why not just adding one DC from one faction. They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7185	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:46:17 - [423] - Quote Excellent change, supported 110%. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2969	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:52:12 - [424] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost. It's to allow different factions LP stores to have value, rather than forcing people to grind a particular faction rep for a faction DC. Obviously not all factions get every single module, but a range of factions per module spreads things out.
Light Combat Drone Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 14	Posted - 2016.02.12 07:52:45 - [425] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: They've been doing this for faction stuff all over tiericide. It's pointless complexity and it makes no sense to me. It's exactly the kind of "flavor for no reason but flavor" that I thought tiericide was supposed to help get rid of. Just one more way new players get burned because they don't know there is an exactly identical faction alternative to the one they saw, for half the cost. Could it have something to do with making sure faction-quality items can't be easily monopolized by a single PC entity controling a NPC area of availability?
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 150	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:11:36 - [426] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: It's happening! We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Damage Controls. The issue with Damage Controls is that they're essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships. This limits fitting choice quite significantly. However because they're so powerful and so ubiquitous, simply nerfing them would be a large EHP nerf to almost every ship in EVE, knocking a lot of other dynamics out of balance. So the plan is to nerf the hull resistance bonus of damage controls by a large margin, but also buff every ship in the game at the same time to compensate. We'll be reducing the hull resist benefit of Damage Controls by about 1/3 (going to 40% for T2 and 30% for T1) but also adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. We're also planning on completing two long-time player requests: 1) Adding faction and officer versions of Damage Controls 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules We recognize that this is a pretty huge and far-reaching set of changes, so we'll be especially interested in all your feedback from SISI! Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers: [img]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/Damage_Controls.jpg[/img] We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading. Thanks! Nice message that suicide ganking will be buffed in the next patches. Is about time. +1 to suicide ganking.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7185	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:18:17 - [427] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Already giving away my stuff. Just writing some EVE mails and giving myself a week to liquidate my assets and reconsider. No you can't have any, the recipients are already determined. You'll reconsider. Very few people that have ever claimed to be ragequitting EVE have actually quit. Tipa Riot wrote: This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). Both sides will actually get the defense bonus. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1206	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:21:04 - [428] - Quote Tippia wrote: 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? Why shouldn't the results of an ill-conceived changed be discussed in the feedback thread for that change? Because you're not talking about it, really. As usual the polarised sides of the debate descended into name calling within 5 minutes and its all about the wider metagame of ganking as opposed to the change. Essentially you're all squabbling among yourselves about which side is telling the biggest lies instead of providing useful feedback to the devs. I enjoy slapping carebears as much as the next guy, but there are huge ramifications here not associated with freighters, like for example nearly every fit in existence using a meta DC will now be broken. That's kind of a big deal, doubly so for younger players, it would be a shame to have that lost in gankers vs gankees v234879428937423. I get you're concerned, I think it's madness too, however there are a lot more impacts to this than just freighters. The way the thread is completely destroys any chance of CCP seeing other concerns around the change.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2202	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:21:14 - [429] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. So can we expect a buff to ganking which is not related to Freighters then? Or will I have to roll another alt (I am glad they are free now with SP farming)? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1097	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:22:25 - [430] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). Both sides will actually get the defense bonus. Yeah I'm sure gankers benefit so much from extra hull EHP.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7185	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:25:42 - [431] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). Both sides will actually get the defense bonus. Yeah I'm sure gankers benefit so much from extra hull EHP. Hey, who's fault is tit that gankers actively choose to ignore a portion of their ships stats? They choose to gank, they know the repercussions, the fact that they choose not to use what s being buffed doesn't mean they aren't getting it. Also, a natural hull defense will make it harder for anti-gankers to volley the gank ships while they are ganking, so it's not all unused. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7185	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:30:03 - [432] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. That's the equvalent of saying "this highly trained group of sharpshooters only miss 0.1% of their shots, therefore the global chance of failing to hit a target is 0.1%". It also, once again, misses out the fact that the number of freight runs vastly outnumbers the number of gankers, so in the majority of those cases there were no gankers around to attempt the gank. If there was an attempt every time the figures would be significantly higher. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Cat Evergreen EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:32:22 - [433] - Quote (Sorry if this has been said before, but I don't have the time to read through 20+ forum pages.) My thoughts on how this will influence fittings: How much this change will influence ship fittings, depends mainly on the type of tank, because Damage Controls are more common in certain tank types than in others. 1. Speed/Sig Tank, long range snipers, cloaky: Usually don't have tank at all, so this change will give them a good bonus in EHP form the native hull resist, but it doesn't matter much, because the goal of those fit is to not get hit at all. 2. Buffer tank (hull, armor, shield): Usually already have a Damage Control fitted, to maximize the overall EHP. A slight bouns from the higher resists (33% + 40% > 60%), not a significant change. 3. Active tank (armor or shield) (local and remote): Most of those do not rely on a Damage Control, as they want to maximize EHP/s repaired so their main goal is to get their shield or armor resists as high as possible. In most cases an EANM2 or AI2 does this job better than a Damage Control. To survive reload times (on ancilliary reppers/booster), logi lock times and alpha strikes they sometimes compromise by adding buffer, but often in the form of plates or extenders. They get a significant EHP boost from the native hull resists, making those hard to crack nuts even harder to crack. 4. Active hull tank: Those do not really exist, as hull resists couldn't be increased over 60% (without Triage or Bastion) while armor or shield easily went over 70% up to more than 90% resists. And hull repair modules are harder to fit than similar sized armor repair modules, require more cap than those and repair only as much as smaller armor repair modules. The small increase in hull resists helps those a bit, but not as much as acitve armor or shield tanks. TL;DR: Overall I think this change only favours active armor and active shield tanks, but my hope for some hull tank love has been denied again.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1097	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:40:31 - [434] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). Both sides will actually get the defense bonus. Yeah I'm sure gankers benefit so much from extra hull EHP. Hey, who's fault is it that gankers actively choose to ignore a portion of their ships stats? They choose to gank, they know the repercussions, the fact that they choose not to use what s being buffed doesn't mean they aren't getting it. Also, a natural hull defense will make it harder for anti-gankers to volley the gank ships while they are ganking, so it's not all unused. Someone get Lucas Kell a position on his country's Olympic team for mental gymnastics.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7186	Posted - 2016.02.12 08:50:06 - [435] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Someone get Lucas Kell a position on his country's Olympic team for mental gymnastics. Typical response. You have no counter because the points I made are spot on. Gankers do benefit and the only reason their benefit is limited is the choices they choose to make in playstyle. Get over it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2192	Posted - 2016.02.12 09:05:20 - [436] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: This is too much, it makes things more even, buffs careless pilots, reduce room for piloting mistakes ... and what about neuts? You can't shut down a passive module with neuts! This is a huge buff to the defense side of the game without proper compensation on the offense (DPS buff). Both sides will actually get the defense bonus. Sure, but what I'm saying is, the game does not need more passive mechanics and passive hitpoints in general, but less. Players should be more involved, have more choices, not less (or receiving less penalties for the wrong or no choice). I'm my own NPC alt.
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 162	Posted - 2016.02.12 09:27:23 - [437] - Quote Are the mods on vacation or what? How did this thread devolve into one full of ganking related shitposts, with only minor entertainment value in seeing recurring proof of the fact that Aiwha is an idiot?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7186	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:01:20 - [438] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Sure, but what I'm saying is, the game does not need more passive mechanics and passive hitpoints in general, but less. Players should be more involved, have more choices, not less (or receiving less penalties for the wrong or no choice). I don't disagree, I'd love to see more active methods of defense. Unfortunately those don't seem to be coming any time soon and every time anyone attempts to have a discussion about adding more active mechanics for anti-gankers the usual crowd jump with their "lol the tears" and "there's already enough mechanics". So in lieu of that I'll definitely support passive defense improvements as something is better than nothing. In the future if CCP choose to add more active defense methods, then I see no reason why they can't swap out some of the passive defense at that point. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sbrodor Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation 176	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:12:45 - [439] - Quote extremly agree on that change.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:13:55 - [440] - 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. Pleyer vs dev is the worst kind of balance. We shouldn't be punished because we like to do something and are succesful at it., but somehow that's what always happens with ganking. There is also absolutely no balance issue at the moment, freighters aren't dying left and right. A-type providences and bulkheaded obelisk are a tiny percentage of dying freighters compared to expanded ones.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7186	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:20:43 - [441] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Pleyer vs dev is the worst kind of balance. We shouldn't be punished because we like to do something and are succesful at it., but somehow that's what always happens with ganking. It's not player vs dev, and you aren't being punished. They are simply adding balancing changes and you're sad because you'll have to put in a small amount more effort. Considering how little effort it already takes, that's not big deal. Jin Kugu wrote: There is also absolutely no balance issue at the moment, freighters aren't dying left and right. A-type providences and bulkheaded obelisk are a tiny percentage of dying freighters compared to expanded ones. Of course there's a balance issue. The only reason freighters aren't dying left and right is because you're not attempting to kill them. It's impossible for a freighter to be ungankable, so if you really wanted to you could gank any and all of them. That would be like saying a module that killed every enemy in a system instantly wouldn't be unbalanced if people generally chose not to use it, as people wouldn't be dying left and right. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:22:38 - [442] - Quote Adam Lyon wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Miniluv makes 0 profit. Any loot we get goes back into ganking. We have a lot of months where we run a deficit. That means after thousands and thousands of hours of playing this terrible game we made negative isk. Before facturing in the cost of gankers having to plex their accounts. If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked. Just wanted to point out how misleading this is. The reason you make 0 isk is because that's where you draw the line. PushX has made changes to their hauling such that they won't take loads over 1.5bisk because that's where the break even line is for gankers. All this does is push the line up. You'll still gank for 0 isk. 1.5 bil freighters are way, way below the treshold for us to care. I would tell you the treshold but that would make things too easy. Don't confuse CODE dunking things left and right in Uedama with miniluv actively hunting whales all over high sec.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:27:03 - [443] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Pleyer vs dev is the worst kind of balance. We shouldn't be punished because we like to do something and are succesful at it., but somehow that's what always happens with ganking. It's not player vs dev, and you aren't being punished. They are simply adding balancing changes and you're sad because you'll have to put in a small amount more effort. Considering how little effort it already takes, that's not big deal. Jin Kugu wrote: There is also absolutely no balance issue at the moment, freighters aren't dying left and right. A-type providences and bulkheaded obelisk are a tiny percentage of dying freighters compared to expanded ones. Of course there's a balance issue. The only reason freighters aren't dying left and right is because you're not attempting to kill them. It's impossible for a freighter to be ungankable, so if you really wanted to you could gank any and all of them. That would be like saying a module that killed every enemy in a system instantly wouldn't be unbalanced if people generally chose not to use it, as people wouldn't be dying left and right. Why has my triple expanded freighter that lives in Uedama and Niarja never died? I autopilot it around all the time. I move miniluv loot and assets worth 15bil+ at once. Please tell me how I could get my charon ganked, I would love to be on the other side for once.
Tavion Aksmis EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:29:07 - [444] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? As of this patch you cant deny the loot from a suecide ganked freighter, in favor of the ganker. This could be offset by buffing Freighter EHP.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:34:01 - [445] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Pleyer vs dev is the worst kind of balance. We shouldn't be punished because we like to do something and are succesful at it., but somehow that's what always happens with ganking. It's not player vs dev, and you aren't being punished. They are simply adding balancing changes and you're sad because you'll have to put in a small amount more effort. Considering how little effort it already takes, that's not big deal. Jin Kugu wrote: There is also absolutely no balance issue at the moment, freighters aren't dying left and right. A-type providences and bulkheaded obelisk are a tiny percentage of dying freighters compared to expanded ones. Of course there's a balance issue. The only reason freighters aren't dying left and right is because you're not attempting to kill them. It's impossible for a freighter to be ungankable, so if you really wanted to you could gank any and all of them. That would be like saying a module that killed every enemy in a system instantly wouldn't be unbalanced if people generally chose not to use it, as people wouldn't be dying left and right. Let me tell you a secret. There are ungankable t2 haulers. They still die from time to time but if you aren't bad they will never ever die. DSTs, blockade runners and JFs are unkillable in high sec if flown properly. T1 freighters are indeed less safe but they can move more cargo at once. It's almost like things are in an ok place where people can make choices.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:36:25 - [446] - Quote Tavion Aksmis wrote: TigerXtrm wrote: I'm sorry, what does the EHP of a freighter have to do with the HP changes to wrecks? As of this patch you cant deny the loot from a suecide ganked freighter, in favor of the ganker. This could be offset by buffing Freighter EHP. You can still very easily deny loot using the same mechanic. The wreck ehp was just silly low before, now I think it's in a balanced place.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7187	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:50:03 - [447] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Why has my triple expanded freighter that lives in Uedama and Niarja never died? I autopilot it around all the time. I move miniluv loot and assets worth 15bil+ at once. Please tell me how I could get my charon ganked, I would love to be on the other side for once. I dunno, blind luck? What are you suggesting the reason is? That it's possible not only for a ship to be ungankable, but a triple expanded freighter with 15+b in cargo autopiloting through uedama to be ungankable? Gankers not choosing to gank everything and game balance are not the same thing. You can't just choose to not kill anythign for a month, then say "well nothing has been ganked in a month therefore freighters need paper thin tanks". The mechanics to gank guarantee that freighter cannot be ungankable, and that the biggest hurdle to overcome is getting them bumped (instalock suicide tackle and a bumping machariel will sort that for you). The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Anthar Thebess 1454	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:51:23 - [448] - Quote Important thing is that this raw buff to structure resists will affect every one in eve. Low and nullsec : Huge buff to structure EHP will remove damage control from many fleet fittings, as buff provided by current damage control will be much lesser than additional armor resistance, or power diagnostic system. Ships will be harder to kill, and this will be issue in fleet fights where we have logistic ships. Huge buff to all capitals and supers. Higsec: All kind of ganking will be affected. People who don't mount damage control will get flat bonus to structure EHP. MOST IMPORTANT : Why we don't have pirate lp store versions of this module. Stop discriminating loyal citizens of NPC null sec! Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Tavion Aksmis EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:52:51 - [449] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/ should give you an idea for last 24 hours 9 aren't even in high sec 7 aren't ganks 14 ganks 10 of them in uedama, 1 system that can be avoided and should be scouted every time How the **** do you avoid Uedama? By going around, thats 40 jumps in a freighter.. or nearly 1 hour... lol
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7187	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:54:47 - [450] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: You can still very easily deny loot using the same mechanic. I'd very much argue this. You'd need to get at least 2 ships instalocking and killing the wreck before the looter looted it. Considering how many times even a thrasher failed to get it in time, the chances are significantly lower following the change. Jin Kugu wrote: Giving freighters more EHP is the worst way to ~counterbalance~ a loot retrieval buff. Decreasing the amount of targets will lead to another dead way of playing EvE sooner or later. No one cares that it's easier to loot when there are no more viable targets. It only decreases targets if you're too lazy to adapt. There is no such thing as an ungankable freighter, so the number of potential freighters to gank remains the same. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:57:21 - [451] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Why has my triple expanded freighter that lives in Uedama and Niarja never died? I autopilot it around all the time. I move miniluv loot and assets worth 15bil+ at once. Please tell me how I could get my charon ganked, I would love to be on the other side for once. I dunno, blind luck? What are you suggesting the reason is? That it's possible not only for a ship to be ungankable, but a triple expanded freighter with 15+b in cargo autopiloting through uedama to be ungankable? Gankers not choosing to gank everything and game balance are not the same thing. You can't just choose to not kill anythign for a month, then say "well nothing has been ganked in a month therefore freighters need paper thin tanks". The mechanics to gank guarantee that freighter cannot be ungankable, and that the biggest hurdle to overcome is getting them bumped (instalock suicide tackle and a bumping machariel will sort that for you). It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious.
Tuitian Bogel Viziam Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:07:42 - [452] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Why has my triple expanded freighter that lives in Uedama and Niarja never died? I autopilot it around all the time. I move miniluv loot and assets worth 15bil+ at once. Please tell me how I could get my charon ganked, I would love to be on the other side for once. I dunno, blind luck? What are you suggesting the reason is? That it's possible not only for a ship to be ungankable, but a triple expanded freighter with 15+b in cargo autopiloting through uedama to be ungankable? Gankers not choosing to gank everything and game balance are not the same thing. You can't just choose to not kill anythign for a month, then say "well nothing has been ganked in a month therefore freighters need paper thin tanks". The mechanics to gank guarantee that freighter cannot be ungankable, and that the biggest hurdle to overcome is getting them bumped (instalock suicide tackle and a bumping machariel will sort that for you). It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious. The amount of SMA and FCON whales in highsec really is staggering, Maybe the herd needs some culling.
Urziel99 Unified Research and Industrial 138	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:10:51 - [453] - Quote A decent start, but they still haven't fixed the most game breaking aspects of ganking, Bumping and sec status.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4300	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:12:25 - [454] - Quote Don't understand why freighters are getting the hull resists since they can't fit a DCU anyway. Good for my JF I guess, but doesn't make much sense to me. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7194	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:12:48 - [455] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Lol, so to be clear, you are saying that you don't get killed because the gankers leave you alone, thus still proving my point that the only reason freighters survive is that you opt not to kill them. Thanks I guess. Jin Kugu wrote: Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious. My NPC alts - completely unrelated to my SMA characters - are currently protected? I was not aware. I roll the dice just like anyone else, relying on being the least likely target to reduce my chances of having my readily gankable ship ganked. If I do suffer a loss, luckily I have a rather large amount of funds ready to replace it, and do you know how a fair chunk of that funding was made? During an ice interdiction, by ganking miners and playing the market. #gankingforzeroprofit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tuitian Bogel Viziam Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:15:38 - [456] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Lol, so to be clear, you are saying that you don't get killed because the gankers leave you alone, thus still proving my point that the only reason freighters survive is that you opt not to kill them. Thanks I guess. Jin Kugu wrote: Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious. My NPC alts - completely unrelated to my SMA characters - are currently protected? I was not aware. I roll the dice just like anyone else, relying on being the least likely target to reduce my chances of having my readily gankable ship ganked. If I do suffer a loss, luckily I have a rather large amount of funds ready to replace it, and do you know how a fair chunk of that funding was made? During an ice interdiction, by ganking miners and playing the market. #gankingforzeroprofit. So you made isk from ganking, now having made it would like noone else to be able to do it anywhere near as effectively?
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:19:43 - [457] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Lol, so to be clear, you are saying that you don't get killed because the gankers leave you alone, thus still proving my point that the only reason freighters survive is that you opt not to kill them. Thanks I guess. Jin Kugu wrote: Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious. My NPC alts - completely unrelated to my SMA characters - are currently protected? I was not aware. I roll the dice just like anyone else, relying on being the least likely target to reduce my chances of having my readily gankable ship ganked. If I do suffer a loss, luckily I have a rather large amount of funds ready to replace it, and do you know how a fair chunk of that funding was made? During an ice interdiction, by ganking miners and playing the market. #gankingforzeroprofit. I'm going to bump and ransom SMA freighters until they send you a message with me in CC that you are dumb.
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:25:15 - [458] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: It's not blind luck. It's organisation of players. Lol, so to be clear, you are saying that you don't get killed because the gankers leave you alone, thus still proving my point that the only reason freighters survive is that you opt not to kill them. Thanks I guess. Jin Kugu wrote: Also, same goes for SMA, one day you won't be protected from high sec ganking and it will be absolutely glorious. My NPC alts - completely unrelated to my SMA characters - are currently protected? I was not aware. I roll the dice just like anyone else, relying on being the least likely target to reduce my chances of having my readily gankable ship ganked. If I do suffer a loss, luckily I have a rather large amount of funds ready to replace it, and do you know how a fair chunk of that funding was made? During an ice interdiction, by ganking miners and playing the market. #gankingforzeroprofit. I'm going to bump and ransom SMA freighters until they send you a message with me in CC that you are dumb. Send the logs off to I WANT ISK and they may even pay you for doing it ;)
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 581	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:29:00 - [459] - Quote thumbs up from me on this one. 1/3rd of my ships dont use a dc these days anyhow. (and finally a nice change against all the suicide ganks happening) Berry Nice wrote: A fully bulkheaded anshar in a 0.5 would require just shy of 30 taloses to be ganked in a perfect situation. Not only is that 4-5 billion in ships, but you need 30 people, on standby, ready to do it. Sounds balanced to me. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
gascanu Bearing Srl. 305	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:30:47 - [460] - Quote lol, allot of gankers tears in this thread; few days ago when wreck hp buff was announced you where all , now we are drowning in your tears; you will need several more t1 destroiers to gank a freighter now, oh my god the sky is falling! you are the biggest carabears in eve online, how about "adapt or gtfo"

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7194	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:35:13 - [461] - Quote Tuitian Bogel wrote: So you made isk from ganking, now having made it would like noone else to be able to do it anywhere near as effectively? Just calling for balance bro and refuting these claims that gankers are poor. See he seems to think that if he can make wild claims that ganking makes no profit and get people to believe them that ganking will be exempt from balance, so he can continue to make easy isk with little effort and risk. Jin Kugu wrote: I'm going to bump and ransom SMA freighters until they send you a message with me in CC that you are dumb. Good luck with that. If an SMA pilot is flying in highsec in a freighter and getting bumped, I'm really not going to worry about me being thought of as the dumb one. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:46:51 - [462] - Quote gascanu wrote: lol, allot of gankers tears in this thread; few days ago when wreck hp buff was announced you where all , now we are drowning in your tears; you will need several more t1 destroiers to gank a freighter now, oh my god the sky is falling! you are the biggest carabears in eve online, how about "adapt or gtfo" several more t1 catalysts? are you high? what part of 33% resists on hull do you not quite grasp? To put that in to something you might understand it takes around 46 t1 catalysts to kill a bulkheaded obelisk in perfect conditions and landing at 0. after the changes it will now take 56 t1 catalysts, or a 20% increase in ships required for the bare minimum.
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:48:41 - [463] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tuitian Bogel wrote: So you made isk from ganking, now having made it would like noone else to be able to do it anywhere near as effectively? Just calling for balance bro and refuting these claims that gankers are poor. See he seems to think that if he can make wild claims that ganking makes no profit and get people to believe them that ganking will be exempt from balance, so he can continue to make easy isk with little effort and risk. Jin Kugu wrote: I'm going to bump and ransom SMA freighters until they send you a message with me in CC that you are dumb. Good luck with that. If an SMA pilot is flying in highsec in a freighter and getting bumped, I'm really not going to worry about me being thought of as the dumb one. Are you in Ministry of love? If not then STFU, you have no idea how much they have. Hint, the people who are actually in it are already telling everyone in the thread they are running on a borderline deficit/some months break even. In return for having a counter against wreck popping, you are now expected to chew through 33% more hull resistance.
Frayn Bantam The Chasers 2	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:51:48 - [464] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tuitian Bogel wrote: So you made isk from ganking, now having made it would like noone else to be able to do it anywhere near as effectively? Just calling for balance bro and refuting these claims that gankers are poor. See he seems to think that if he can make wild claims that ganking makes no profit and get people to believe them that ganking will be exempt from balance, so he can continue to make easy isk with little effort and risk. The miniluv forum has a sticky with about a year's worth of monthly audits, go see exactly how much we make. And we're the guys that actually TRY to make money from ganking, CODE is in the red most of the time.
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 581	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:51:49 - [465] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: You're dumb. Wreck shooting was an unstoppable mechanic done by 1 guy. Freighter ganking is easy to stop if you bring the same amount of people as the gankers. Yeah, cause only goons and large alliances in general should be allowed to own and fly freighters since they have unlimited number of ppl that can protect them. Not everyone in eve is in some large powerblock, so how the heck do you expect them to field defence fleets to move freighters? QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 11:55:47 - [466] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: You're dumb. Wreck shooting was an unstoppable mechanic done by 1 guy. Freighter ganking is easy to stop if you bring the same amount of people as the gankers. Yeah, cause only goons and large alliances in general should be allowed to own and fly freighters since they have unlimited number of ppl that can protect them. Not everyone in eve is in some large powerblock, so how the heck do you expect them to field defence fleets to move freighters? You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Or buy a jump freighter, and you are untouchable. The point is why should 1 person ever be able to have more influence over a situation then 30, the wreck popping mechanic was broken as it cost 2m isk to destroy any amount of isk. Gankers atleast have a ratio, and are penalized isk wise the less people they have by having to up ship.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1791	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:02:45 - [467] - Quote Fozzie, can you clarify the situation as to the compact version of the damage control, The IFFA 1 uses 17 CPU, And is the most widely used after the T2 due to it's CPU fitting requirements. The new compact is 20CPU. This does alter significantly a large range of potential ship fits. Of course, This may be entirely intended, and a design goal, but can you clarify that this is your intention and not a copy pasta error, as it is of significance. I did notice on Neocom that there is a IFFA (not 1) with a 20CPU requirement in the database, and I wondered if the two had been confused? Thanks There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:05:05 - [468] - Quote Freighter ganking is not a profitable thing to do in eve. Do you really think Warr Akini, the founder and eternal leader of miniluv, multiboxed 13 carriers for fun? Why would he do that while he could be making all these imaginary mad bux ganking in high sec. If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires.
Alex Harumichi Icecream Audit Office 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:05:28 - [469] - Quote I like the idea of making dcus passive, needing to remember to activate that thing is sometimes a pain. Not totally sure about all the implications of moving part of dcu hull bonus to all ship hulls... we'll see. One thing confuses me here: people are saying jump freighters in highsec are untouchable. What am I missing? I thought JFs could only jump to lowsec, and don't JFs generally have less ehp than t1 freighters? What makes them untouchable? I've never flown one (out of my price range :), so no direct experience. Properly flown DSTs are very hard to kill (catch), that much is quite true.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7194	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:05:46 - [470] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: several more t1 catalysts? are you high? TIL "several" doesn't include 10. Xandora Assassin wrote: Are you in Ministry of love? If not then STFU, you have no idea how much they have. Hint, the people who are actually in it are already telling everyone in the thread they are running on a borderline deficit/some months break even. I have been in the miniluv sig, I got "purged" for having a negative public opinion about ganking, but I don't need any inside info as Miniluv are quite open with it, they posted a lot of it on themittani.com. Also, having done quite a lot of different types of ganking, I'm aware of the costs and potential rewards involved. With good target selection you can profit pretty easily. Also, compared with every other pure PvP activity, it's got a shockingly high return, and you don't even have to leave highsec. Xandora Assassin wrote: In return for having a counter against wreck popping, you are now expected to chew through 33% more hull resistance. Sounds fair, albeit worded in a way to make it sound more biased than it is. I'll go with "In return for all but removing one of the only methods AGs had of even reducing the rewards reaped by gankers, gankers now have to put in a little more effort to their ganks" to counter that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Basil Vulpine Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 67	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:08:10 - [471] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: You're dumb. Wreck shooting was an unstoppable mechanic done by 1 guy. Freighter ganking is easy to stop if you bring the same amount of people as the gankers. Yeah, cause only goons and large alliances in general should be allowed to own and fly freighters since they have unlimited number of ppl that can protect them. Not everyone in eve is in some large powerblock, so how the heck do you expect them to field defence fleets to move freighters? You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Or buy a jump freighter, and you are untouchable. The point is why should 1 person ever be able to have more influence over a situation then 30, the wreck popping mechanic was broken as it cost 2m isk to destroy any amount of isk. Gankers atleast have a ratio, and are penalized isk wise the less people they have by having to up ship. The scout is what leaves you untouchable and deciding that the gate you are going through is too hot so it's time to log out and do something else for a while. The webber is quality of life since freighters with webbing alts are still getting ganked. So what you're saying is that as numbers isn't the important thing then while gates are manned with gankers all the haulers should go and do something else? And don't say "spend an extra hour doing one of the dullest jobs in Eve so you can route around the blockage" because people will optimise their time for fun within reason. If it absolutely has to move NOW then it's either a freighter under the gank limit or a JF. Otherwise if it's day to day bulk goods people go and do other things. That equates to if it's day to day suicide ganks then you'll just have to do more of the dull waiting/scanning before you get your reward. Which is what you a lot of the pro-gank posts boil down to. "I'm going to have to wait longer before a worthwhile target shows up so my lifestyle is going to vanish."
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7196	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:13:27 - [472] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Demonstrably false. Instalocking suicide tackle and a bumper renders a webber useless. Xandora Assassin wrote: Or buy a jump freighter, and you are untouchable. The only way you could be somewhat untouchable is if you had an in-range cyno to jump to, which generally you don't and is the case regardless of whether or not JF HP changes. JFs in general aren't immune to ganking as shown by the JFs that have been ganked. Xandora Assassin wrote: The point is why should 1 person ever be able to have more influence over a situation then 30, the wreck popping mechanic was broken as it cost 2m isk to destroy any amount of isk. Gankers atleast have a ratio, and are penalized isk wise the less people they have by having to up ship. They didn't have influence over 30. The ganking and the looting are two separate but related mechanics. 30 gankers cannot be stopped from ganking by one person. Once the gank had occurred though, it was 1 looter vs 1 wreck destroyer at a minimum. Now it's 1 looter vs 2 wreck destroyers at a minimum. Jin Kugu wrote: If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. I doubt it, incursions require more than warping to target, locking it up and hitting F1. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 918	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:13:42 - [473] - Quote Alex Harumichi wrote: I like the idea of making dcus passive, needing to remember to activate that thing is sometimes a pain. Not totally sure about all the implications of moving part of dcu hull bonus to all ship hulls... we'll see. One thing confuses me here: people are saying jump freighters in highsec are untouchable. What am I missing? I thought JFs could only jump to lowsec, and don't JFs generally have less ehp than t1 freighters? What makes them untouchable? I've never flown one (out of my price range :), so no direct experience. Properly flown DSTs are very hard to kill (catch), that much is quite true. Anshar now has 1 million ehp with bulkheads in lowslots. (after changes) Picture that. 1000000 effective hitpoints. JFs are already way too tanky, and now they are getting 50% more ehp. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:14:17 - [474] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Xandora Assassin wrote: several more t1 catalysts? are you high? TIL "several" doesn't include 10. Xandora Assassin wrote: Are you in Ministry of love? If not then STFU, you have no idea how much they have. Hint, the people who are actually in it are already telling everyone in the thread they are running on a borderline deficit/some months break even. I have been in the miniluv sig, I got "purged" for having a negative public opinion about ganking, but I don't need any inside info as Miniluv are quite open with it, they posted a lot of it on themittani.com. Also, having done quite a lot of different types of ganking, I'm aware of the costs and potential rewards involved. With good target selection you can profit pretty easily. Also, compared with every other pure PvP activity, it's got a shockingly high return, and you don't even have to leave highsec. Xandora Assassin wrote: In return for having a counter against wreck popping, you are now expected to chew through 33% more hull resistance. Sounds fair, albeit worded in a way to make it sound more biased than it is. I'll go with "In return for all but removing one of the only methods AGs had of even reducing the rewards reaped by gankers, gankers now have to put in a little more effort to their ganks" to counter that. Except the freighter pilot can't blue the wreck and let AG kill it AG can bring 2 tornado's (i know they might have to actually spend isk like we do) and insta pop it AG can bring 8 thrashers You could gank the scoop freighter there are already hard counters in place, they just are not used. You were purged because you stopped showing up on fleets, which is probably what lead to you feeling the way you do currently about Miniluv. In fozzies own words but slightly more in depth "In return for now having a freighter wreck that has more hp than a capsule, you are going to have to deal with 33% hull resists on a ship that was fitting balanced around not being able to use a damage control because of the sheer amount of hull they already have" every mechanic gankers use has a counter tactic, a thrasher killing a wreck with 20b in cargo and spending 2m to do it, while using invulnerability from a warpin was not counterable. the fact that they believe being able to have a good chance at looting what you kill (even requiring you still to go suspect in a freighter at times) deserves this sort of a nerf in return is down right idiotic and goes counter to the Eve mantra of "Space is a harsh place, unless you are in a freighter that now has more ehp than a Boot archon while being in highsec"
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 583	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:14:21 - [475] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We are now at the point where ganking really is just about gone. Trying hard to find out if your just a troll, or really are this dumb. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 42	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:14:26 - [476] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Freighter ganking is not a profitable thing to do in eve. Do you really think Warr Akini, the founder and eternal leader of miniluv, multiboxed 13 carriers for fun? Why would he do that while he could be making all these imaginary mad bux ganking in high sec. If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. theres nothing to stop you earning some honest isk from incursions to reinvest in ganking is there? but i know, effort .
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 918	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:15:11 - [477] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Xandora Assassin wrote: You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Demonstrably false. Instalocking suicide tackle and a bumper renders a webber useless. Xandora Assassin wrote: Or buy a jump freighter, and you are untouchable. The only way you could be somewhat untouchable is if you had an in-range cyno to jump to, which generally you don't and is the case regardless of whether or not JF HP changes. JFs in general aren't immune to ganking as shown by the JFs that have been ganked. Xandora Assassin wrote: The point is why should 1 person ever be able to have more influence over a situation then 30, the wreck popping mechanic was broken as it cost 2m isk to destroy any amount of isk. Gankers atleast have a ratio, and are penalized isk wise the less people they have by having to up ship. They didn't have influence over 30. The ganking and the looting are two separate but related mechanics. 30 gankers cannot be stopped from ganking by one person. Once the gank had occurred though, it was 1 looter vs 1 wreck destroyer at a minimum. Now it's 1 looter vs 2 wreck destroyers at a minimum. Jin Kugu wrote: If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. I doubt it, incursions require more than warping to target, locking it up and hitting F1. Is this sarcasm? EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Xandora Assassin Starfleet Research and Development 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:18:34 - [478] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Xandora Assassin wrote: You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Demonstrably false. Instalocking suicide tackle and a bumper renders a webber useless. Xandora Assassin wrote: Or buy a jump freighter, and you are untouchable. The only way you could be somewhat untouchable is if you had an in-range cyno to jump to, which generally you don't and is the case regardless of whether or not JF HP changes. JFs in general aren't immune to ganking as shown by the JFs that have been ganked. Xandora Assassin wrote: The point is why should 1 person ever be able to have more influence over a situation then 30, the wreck popping mechanic was broken as it cost 2m isk to destroy any amount of isk. Gankers atleast have a ratio, and are penalized isk wise the less people they have by having to up ship. They didn't have influence over 30. The ganking and the looting are two separate but related mechanics. 30 gankers cannot be stopped from ganking by one person. Once the gank had occurred though, it was 1 looter vs 1 wreck destroyer at a minimum. Now it's 1 looter vs 2 wreck destroyers at a minimum. Jin Kugu wrote: If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. I doubt it, incursions require more than warping to target, locking it up and hitting F1. As someone who was an Incursion FC in highsec, the FC fleet warped you to an acceleration gate which you had to click on to enter, once you landed you locked up targets labeled "1,2,3" or "a,b,c" and pressed F1. on the off chance that you were the one person in 40 people on grid that got shot at, you had to rely on your super fast reflexes to broadcast for repairs in under 20seconds to be saved.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 42	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:22:01 - [479] - Quote id also like to point out regarding the numbers quoted re ships required to gank a freighter, if you look at codes killboard , you'll notice that they have a lot of 'awox' kills of their own gank ships, this is all surplus dps after the feighter has popped , and done to pad their kb, and to try denying bounties to those who hunt them .
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 918	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:24:56 - [480] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: id also like to point out regarding the numbers quoted re ships required to gank a freighter, if you look at codes killboard , you'll notice that they have a lot of 'awox' kills of their own gank ships, this is all surplus dps after the feighter has popped , and done to pad their kb, and to try denying bounties to those who hunt them . "hunt them" You mean whoring on them safely from 100 km away with ewar. It's smartbombs and yeah we do it to deny you bounties. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Alex Harumichi Icecream Audit Office 32	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:27:43 - [481] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. ...which begs the question: why don't you? It's a bit less boring and takes a bit more skill than ganking freighters in highsec. Admittedly not much, but still. At least the Sansha shoot back I don't really care one way or the other, but your whining about how ganking is now getting too hard and about how it's currently apparently not too profitable (for you) is quite hilarious. If those things were true, a smart person would have moved on to something more fun and/or profitable years ago.
Frayn Bantam The Chasers 2	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:27:45 - [482] - Quote bigbud skunkafella wrote: id also like to point out regarding the numbers quoted re ships required to gank a freighter, if you look at codes killboard , you'll notice that they have a lot of 'awox' kills of their own gank ships, this is all surplus dps after the feighter has popped , and done to pad their kb, and to try denying bounties to those who hunt them . That's actually one guy fitting a smartbomb on his catalyst and whoring 20+ concord KMs at once while everyone is shooting the freighter. Try again.
Makkuro Tatsu Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 53	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:28:13 - [483] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Gorion Wassenar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Do you really think ccp has the tools to determine how much isk a group is making? Are you seriously implying a CCP employee doesn't have access to sale logs, killmail logs, bounty logs? I'm implying ccp doesn't have the tools to make sense out of that data. You are obviously wrong. Look at blogs like http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-economy-update-eve-vegas-2015-report/ - to give just a single example - and tell us again that CCP does not have the data (they do), the tools (they do) or the people (they do, hello to CCP Quant and gang).
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 42	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:29:42 - [484] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: id also like to point out regarding the numbers quoted re ships required to gank a freighter, if you look at codes killboard , you'll notice that they have a lot of 'awox' kills of their own gank ships, this is all surplus dps after the feighter has popped , and done to pad their kb, and to try denying bounties to those who hunt them . "hunt them" You mean whoring on them safely from 100 km away with ewar. It's smartbombs and yeah we do it to deny you bounties. hmmm, my ferox jams gankers at 100 k? news to me
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7197	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:30:59 - [485] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: Except the freighter pilot can't blue the wreck and let AG kill it AG can bring 2 tornado's (i know they might have to actually spend isk like we do) and insta pop it AG can bring 8 thrashers You could gank the scoop freighter there are already hard counters in place, they just are not used. All of which boil down to "shoot the loot" which is now much harder than it used to be. Xandora Assassin wrote: You were purged because you stopped showing up on fleets, which is probably what lead to you feeling the way you do currently about Miniluv. No, I really really wasn't. I'd been in multiple fleets less than 12 hours before I was purged and I had a rather amusing discussion on jabber about it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
bigbud skunkafella Not The Usual Suspects 42	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:32:25 - [486] - Quote Frayn Bantam wrote: bigbud skunkafella wrote: id also like to point out regarding the numbers quoted re ships required to gank a freighter, if you look at codes killboard , you'll notice that they have a lot of 'awox' kills of their own gank ships, this is all surplus dps after the feighter has popped , and done to pad their kb, and to try denying bounties to those who hunt them . That's actually one guy fitting a smartbomb on his catalyst and whoring 20+ concord KMs at once while everyone is shooting the freighter. Try again. so u get bounties on top of the freighter loot, and you're still whining?
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 585	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:38:31 - [487] - Quote 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. And here i was, thinking that PL was about 0,0 pvp. Guess i was wrong QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 615	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:44:41 - [488] - Quote I'm torn about this. An HP buff for the people who do fit their frighters for defense is fair. A buff for the ones who don't is stupid. A freighter pilot has to balance cargo space against hit points. A ganker has to balance DPS against price. Can we get a default "base DPS" on catalysts now, so people can go ganking without fitting guns?
Edward Pierce GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 132	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:48:13 - [489] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Skyler Hawk wrote: Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners? Yes. Why? Is there a need for a module that does not get affected by diminishing returns? Is there any module like this out there?
Basil Vulpine Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 67	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:57:37 - [490] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Xandora Assassin wrote: You don't need to, bring a scout and a webber and you are untouchable. Demonstrably false. Instalocking suicide tackle and a bumper renders a webber useless. Snip! some quotes because of posting limits. Jin Kugu wrote: If miniluv ran high sec incursions we would all be trillionaires. I doubt it, incursions require more than warping to target, locking it up and hitting F1. As someone who was an Incursion FC in highsec, the FC fleet warped you to an acceleration gate which you had to click on to enter, once you landed you locked up targets labeled "1,2,3" or "a,b,c" and pressed F1. on the off chance that you were the one person in 40 people on grid that got shot at, you had to rely on your super fast reflexes to broadcast for repairs in under 20seconds to be saved. So you're agreeing with the last point then.

Starrakatt Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID 364	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:59:57 - [491] - Quote Edward Pierce wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Skyler Hawk wrote: Will the shield and armor resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners? Yes. Why? Is there a need for a module that does not get affected by diminishing returns? Is there any module like this out there? Damage Controls stacks with the Reactive Armor Hardener. Sneaky bastard.
Xoceac This is Tax EVASION Corp 8	Posted - 2016.02.12 12:59:57 - [492] - Quote Can someone answer me this? What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else? Do you even math bro?
Ruby Gnollo 1	Posted - 2016.02.12 13:14:52 - [493] - Quote What's amazing is that the wreck HP change wasn't never supposed to ba a gameplay changer. But it was a change sponsored by CSM members. Did the CSM members sponsoring the wreck HP changes realise what they were doing, and why did they do it ?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 324	Posted - 2016.02.12 13:17:17 - [494] - Quote Xandora Assassin wrote: gascanu wrote: lol, allot of gankers tears in this thread; few days ago when wreck hp buff was announced you where all , now we are drowning in your tears; you will need several more t1 destroiers to gank a freighter now, oh my god the sky is falling! you are the biggest carabears in eve online, how about "adapt or gtfo" several more t1 catalysts? are you high? what part of 33% resists on hull do you not quite grasp? To put that in to something you might understand it takes around 46 t1 catalysts to kill a bulkheaded obelisk in perfect conditions and landing at 0. after the changes it will now take 56 t1 catalysts, or a 20% increase in ships required for the bare minimum. How many fully bulkhead fitted freighters do you encounter? I'd guess not too many as they - due to frieghter NERF when lows were introduced can and have to chose between tank, cargo, speed, agility etc. So in reality majority of your kills won't require such a drastic increase of ganking ships. Also, now it takes 8+ t1 thrashers to reliably kill the wreck in perfect conditions and landing at optimals. That's an 800% increase in ships required for the bare minimum. Or 2 ships which cost about 160mil at least. That an increase of 100% in numbers and cca 8000% in costs to gank a wreck. I'd say slight buff to freighter hull EHP is fine. Also, as the wreck thread and arguments coming from your own group has shown, ganking will still be perfectly doable - just bring a bit more people (aka. 'friends') or bigger guns. You're goonies and pets, don't tell me you can't afford them (#nopoors). The real problems related to ganking freighters - bumping and safe looting, remain. Let's hope, not for too long.
Lion Drome Der Wehrmacht 2	Posted - 2016.02.12 13:48:05 - [495] - Quote I'd say keep T2 DCM hull resist at 60% or atleast reduce the nerf to 50%, thats still ok without taking 1/3rd of a modules largest effectiveness away. Faction/Deadspace/Officer modules could scale from that progressively, say top hull resist being 75-80% but being insanely rare from the named officer rats that many don't even see once in their lifetime, it is probably one of the most beloved modules in EVE so if you want to change it try it in smaller increments and see how things properly happen with it, I.E. keep/lower the hull resist, see how T2 does with faction/deadspace/officer ones and then adjust accordingly.
Mikey Aivo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 61	Posted - 2016.02.12 13:50:03 - [496] - Quote Dear ccp Why not remove this module from the game and add its flat bonus to shield/armor/hull to every ship? I know this would present a balance pass on almost every ship given that they would most likely be replaced by a dps mod. So reduce the dps of every ship by at least 25- 40% as well. This would make fights last longer than 2 seconds and give pilots a chance to recover from a bad warp in spot. This would also make for greater fitting options and more unique fits on certain ships. It would not kill hs ganking but rather require more pilots or bigger ships to kill in hs, which is not a bad thing given the amount of griefing that hs currently has to offer.
Ashlar Vellum PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 232	Posted - 2016.02.12 13:55:37 - [497] - Quote boo passive DCU. btw what will happen to the hecate hull resistance bonus?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:04:22 - [498] - Quote Xoceac wrote: Can someone answer me this? What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else? Do you even math bro? 60
Luscius Uta 195	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:13:07 - [499] - Quote 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. Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
Clay Robertson No Vacancies No Vacancies. 4	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:18:40 - [500] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: This is such a bad and unimaginative change. Freighters are in a fine place. Don't believe me? Go look at Jita, Uedama or Niarja. People use freighters a lot even though there are plenty alternatives that are almost unkillable. DSTs, blockade runners, JFs are all almost immune in high sec if properly flown. I guess ccp dumped the whole analysis thing when it comes to ganking nerfs? How many freighters die to a gank per 1000 freighter jumps? How many freighter die to wardecks compared to ganking? You call this a good place? people fly freighters because either they are safer ( cant be popped by a couple nados) or because of m3 size. Sometimes, as with hauling ores, you really just need to use a freighter to make meaningfully large trips. I understand that DSTs are often times safer and in the case of many big freighter ganks the expensive cargo could've been hauled by something smaller, but you can't limit a freighter to just fuel and ore. yes they are quite safe when webbed but things still go wrong quite often, it is still very easy to gank a freighter if the ganking party really wants it. They can kill the webs, or just bump the freighter anyways. Once a freighter is bumped there is no way it's getting out unless the attacking party lets them go. Then, to kill a 1 billion isk ship that is often times carrying 2-10 billion isk worth of stuff, you only need like 100mil worth of ships or less. That aside, ccp generally tries to not make it so that the only way you can run a ship is with a highly trained alt, and no one uses another person to web them except in lowsec sometimes because it just isn't worth the effort (in contract reward that is.). Is it not reasonable to make freighters much harder to gank? By allowing them to fit a DC a freighter would only be ganked if it is carrying a really huge amount of isk worth, which does still happen quite often, but then it is the player's fault. There is no reason for it to sound like a good idea to gank empty freighters.

Kazi Kugisa EVE University Ivy League 48	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:32:09 - [501] - Quote Clay Robertson wrote: You call this a good place? people fly freighters because either they are safer ( cant be popped by a couple nados) or because of m3 size. Sometimes, as with hauling ores, you really just need to use a freighter to make meaningfully large trips. I understand that DSTs are often times safer and in the case of many big freighter ganks the expensive cargo could've been hauled by something smaller, but you can't limit a freighter to just fuel and ore. yes they are quite safe when webbed but things still go wrong quite often, it is still very easy to gank a freighter if the ganking party really wants it. They can kill the webs, or just bump the freighter anyways. Once a freighter is bumped there is no way it's getting out unless the attacking party lets them go. Then, to kill a 1 billion isk ship that is often times carrying 2-10 billion isk worth of stuff, you only need like 100mil worth of ships or less. That aside, ccp generally tries to not make it so that the only way you can run a ship is with a highly trained alt, and no one uses another person to web them except in lowsec sometimes because it just isn't worth the effort (in contract reward that is.). Is it not reasonable to make freighters much harder to gank? By allowing them to fit a DC a freighter would only be ganked if it is carrying a really huge amount of isk worth, which does still happen quite often, but then it is the player's fault. There is no reason for it to sound like a good idea to gank empty freighters. I'm in line with this. If it's going to cost more to gank, than simple economics say that the gankers better do a better job of choosing their targets. I'm sorry that tears bring 0 ISK. There are plenty of whales piloting through the gank points everyday with three cargo extenders and loaded down with expensive loot. These will still be easy and profitable targets even with the buff. What this does is gives a little more protection to the responsible haulers who limit what they haul and the way they haul it. My suggestion to the gankers is to suck it up and just choose the targets better. Tears are just going to get a little more expensive. Although, I would be lying if I said I wasn't enjoying some of the free tears in this thread right now. I'm more sympathetic to the people with real complaints about how the CPU fitting changes are going to affect them. I suggest maybe another meta DCU with maybe 60% of a T2 resists that is in line with IFFA fits. A small nerf but not blowing up the fits completely.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17383	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:35:50 - [502] - 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.
Big Mama Daft Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:36:18 - [503] - Quote eiedu wrote: I would just like to point out that the correlation between wreck HP and freighter HP is coincidental. Wrecks having more HP does not make it easier to gank freighters. Whereas freighters having more hp actually makes it harder to gank. All you're really doing is throwing the "predator and prey" environment out of whack. You of course realise that ganking even an empty freighter was ISK efficient (at least killboard wise)? Don't care if you guys blow up the "stupid fits" and the massively overstuffed ones, but this was not the case and you know it. Also, excellent idea to get rid of the "de facto" DCU -- my raptor loves you Fozzie! (not enough lows ... must absolutely have my nano and BCU ;-)
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:37:34 - [504] - Quote A lot of people (AG) will.quit the game out of boredom if CODE. stops the ganking. They just don't realize that yet Edit: Expanded Cargoholds should need a bigger hull hp penalty to compensate for this. On the other hand, CCP should only do a tiercide and leave hull bonuses out of this. You're buffing idiots when you shouldn't. They need education, death is that education. Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
karma balancer The Conference Elite CODE. 4	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:41:24 - [505] - Quote Heres a thought How about leaving the game the hell alone and turning the wheel full circle and stop trying to implement a game that in all honesty has been butchered to hell with your so called improvements. And finally when will you folk at CCP admit. CODE. Always wins fozzie Looking forward to ganking a nice fat freighter when you implement another fail nerf. With the rate of failure you guys have with these improvements i'd swear you have an anti ganking alt somewhere in james 315 territory GF
Denidil Cascade Crest 647	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:46:03 - [506] - Quote PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a +3% CPU implant) [Mackinaw, 2MLU] Internal Force Field Array I Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Survey Scanner II Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Makkuro Tatsu Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 55	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:51:14 - [507] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17383	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:53:55 - [508] - 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.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1033	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:58:12 - [509] - Quote All the tears are glorious!
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:00:15 - [510] - 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. If you fly expensive junk, you should know that there's a big target on your head. It's your own fault if you die in a pvp game about pvp (note that this isn't WOW or runescape where you have dedicated pvp zones) CCP shouldn't adapt the game for those who don't want to learn from their mistakes. (Something they're clearly doing now) Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)

Dr Paithos Republic Deep Space Institute 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:00:37 - [511] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Quite right. Taking a freighter through two choke-point systems without an alt account for a scout or webber should be punished harshly. #NOPOORS Eve has always required more than one account to do well - all of CODE are alts, and some run up to a dozen gankers. This changing will really hurt CCP's revenue stream, all for an unneeded buff to whining one-account-bobs.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1880	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:03:52 - [512] - 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. He's right, though. It has nothing to do with the style of gameplay and everything to do with the skill exhibited in the execution of that style of gameplay. This is basically beneficial to really bad freighter pilots. It is detrimental to pretty much everyone else in the game, including good freighter pilots, miners, freighter producers, etc. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Nitshe Razvedka State War Academy Caldari State 461	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:04:25 - [513] - Quote SURFS UP!!!!!!!! Ganker TEARS!!!!!!!! Waxing the board to ride the whiney ganker tsunami of TEARS! TEARS! TEARS! **** Dale's Nitro is the music for big wave riding. Come the new changes I'm AFK in my big fat freighter loaded up an cruising slowly crawling inching thru UEDRAMA! Kiss my AFK but gankers!!!!!!!! Carebears Win an CODE can experience more of the game Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16253	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:06:36 - [514] - Quote 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. This is precisely the problem, and it's exactly what happened with barges when they got needlessly buffed as well. Now you basically have to hit somebody with over 3 billion to break even. That basically kills piracy in highsec, and it was already on life support. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Gliese Casserres Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate 37	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:14:46 - [515] - Quote 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.
Makkuro Tatsu Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 55	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:19:38 - [516] - Quote Dr Paithos wrote: A freighter has a 100% chance of safety if you don't undock it - even more than its 99.9999% chance normally. If the whining bobs are so determined to destroy another playstyle and harm the game through using ccp to "get even" with far more active and accomplished players, why not consider just uninstalling yourself? Ah, the comedy of it. Calling gankers "accomplished" must be a brand new application of the adjective I was not yet aware of, and "100% chance of safety if you don't undock it" is even better. All gankers should be aware that while EVE needs industrialists and haulers to keep the big wheels turning in New Eden, nobody needs gankers, or ever will. Ganking is still an option, albeit with a little more effort, so why not cut down on the moaning?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7197	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:20:46 - [517] - Quote karma balancer wrote: How about leaving the game the hell alone and turning the wheel full circle and stop trying to implement a game that in all honesty has been butchered to hell with your so called improvements. It's funny how this is only the sentiment from code members when the change negatively affects them. karma balancer wrote: Looking forward to ganking a nice fat freighter when you implement another fail nerf. Oh, well I guess if it's a fail nerf then there's no need to complain about it. baltec1 wrote: 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. You mean like when their loot gets popped? Oh wait... Dom Arkaral wrote: If you fly expensive junk, you should know that there's a big target on your head. And you still will. Dom Arkaral wrote: CCP shouldn't adapt the game for those who don't want to learn from their mistakes. (Something they're clearly doing now) Nope, they're just levelling out the balance a bit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17392	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:24:59 - [518] - 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.
Big Mama Daft Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:26:09 - [519] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Now you basically have to hit somebody with over 3 billion to break even. That basically kills piracy in highsec, and it was already on life support. Sounds legit. 50 catalysts x 1.1 mil each = 55 mil "invested" yet gankers cry all over their soup. So much lol. The important stuff with this rebalance (yes, I just admitted highsec ganking is child's play of no consequence nor consideration as far as I'm concerned) is the buff to those same catalysts and frigates in, say, nullsec or low -- that should make you happy, no? 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? Highsec is such a small place. Think about all the new fits for FW / frig gangs. My hulltanked Thorax, too ... it's difficult to grasp the implications of it all but I won't shed one tear for gankers, ever. They might learn to PvP for a change, or maybe pick their targets better, idk? "I'll unsub all my ganking alt" boohoo. Go ahead. I'm seeing a lot of good stuff coming, keep it up!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17394	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:29:40 - [520] - 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.

Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:30:45 - [521] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Dom Arkaral wrote: If you fly expensive junk, you should know that there's a big target on your head. And you still will. Of course I will, I'm aware of my surroundings and I tank my stuff (because no tank = no ship) Dom Arkaral wrote: CCP shouldn't adapt the game for those who don't want to learn from their mistakes. (Something they're clearly doing now) Nope, they're just levelling out the balance a bit. Buff the idiots Nerf those that are aware of their surroundings Good trade @CCP, I'd love to know the percentage of dead freighters/ jf that die due to being AFK And the percentage of freighters/ jf that only use cargo expanders I'd enjoy knowing those numbers and showing you that most people use expanders and therefore paint a big "kill me" on their hull Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16254	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:34:21 - [522] - Quote Big Mama Daft wrote: Sounds legit. 50 catalysts x 1.1 mil each = 55 mil This could not be more dishonest. You do realize that you're just claiming the hull cost, right? Nevermind that isk tanking should never be a thing, especially in highsec, but I just wanted to point out that you're a liar. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17396	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:36:06 - [523] - 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.
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 585	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:36:51 - [524] - Quote Dom Arkaral wrote: A lot of people (AG) will.quit the game out of boredom if CODE. stops the ganking. Do you have any proof to back this up, or are you just making stuff up QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Big Mama Daft Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:37:17 - [525] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Big Mama Daft wrote: Sounds legit. 50 catalysts x 1.1 mil each = 55 mil This could not be more dishonest. You do realize that you're just claiming the hull cost, right? Nevermind that isk tanking should never be a thing, especially in highsec, but I just wanted to point out that you're a liar. I stand corrected -- they're 2.06 mil on ZKill. Don't you liar me for such a small transgression LOL
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16254	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:39:16 - [526] - Quote Big Mama Daft wrote: Don't you liar me for such a small transgression LOL No dice, liar. As was mentioned above, the price for ganking catalysts is more than just the hull. You lied through your teeth. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Sissy Fuzz Sissy Fuzz Communications 77	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:40:02 - [527] - Quote 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.
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:40:46 - [528] - Quote Big Mama Daft wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Big Mama Daft wrote: Sounds legit. 50 catalysts x 1.1 mil each = 55 mil This could not be more dishonest. You do realize that you're just claiming the hull cost, right? Nevermind that isk tanking should never be a thing, especially in highsec, but I just wanted to point out that you're a liar. I stand corrected -- they're 2.06 mil on ZKill. Don't you liar me for such a small transgression LOL A 100% transgression is never small Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1208	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:41:04 - [529] - Quote You can counter a bumper with one guy. Now stay the hell on topic goddamnit.
Nitshe Razvedka State War Academy Caldari State 461	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:41:25 - [530] - Quote [quote=Dom Arkaral Buff the idiots Nerf those that are aware of their surroundings Good trade @CCP, I'd love to know the percentage of dead freighters/ jf that die due to being AFK And the percentage of freighters/ jf that only use cargo expanders I'd enjoy knowing those numbers and showing you that most people use expanders and therefore paint a big "kill me" on their hull[/quote] Dom & Dommer Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17396	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:41:58 - [531] - 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.
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:43:13 - [532] - 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. Bumpers go suspect.. The game can't magically guess who is the bumper and the bumper ;) Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17398	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:48:24 - [533] - 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.
Big Mama Daft Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:50:02 - [534] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. It takes around 50 in throwaway Catalysts. Fix: use something better. Ahhhh, but then "MAH ISK EFFICIENCY!!" lulz. You can still be very ISK efficient because you're trying to take down a 1.5 bil ship. I'm sure CODE already did the math and realised they're still coming out ahead but they hope whining will get CCP to reconsider. Please note it also takes multiple players to take down a Carrier or Dread, which to the best of my knowledge are capital ships same as a freighter. Also note it's called "high security" space. Suiciding your ship for big loot is a CHOICE, not an obligation. If the loot is worth it, by all means go ahead. Even if the number were 550 mil (which it ain't and you know it; ZKill don't lie), so what? Your empty freighter costs 1.5 bil. Cry on. baltec1 wrote: 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. Wasn't talking about freighters there. Was talking about frigates and destroyers. Quite a lot of them only have 2-3 lows and this balance pass opens up considerably more options. I was hoping to draw some attention toward the little ships whose HP pool is significantly impacted by these changes. Guess it's all gankertears in this thread, unfortunately.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7197	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:51:39 - [535] - Quote Dr Paithos wrote: Eve has always required more than one account to do well - all of CODE are alts, and some run up to a dozen gankers. This changing will really hurt CCP's revenue stream, all for an unneeded buff to whining one-account-bobs. They got rid of isboxer without too much worry and with their new SP trading, their revenue will probably be OK. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Now you basically have to hit somebody with over 3 billion to break even. That basically kills piracy in highsec, and it was already on life support. Exaggerate much? baltec1 wrote: 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. No, it was something you wanted to change, not something needed. At the end of the day, the one looter vs one loot poppingwas pretty well balanced. Basically it was fastest player wins. Now it's still one looter but with a coordinated strike needed by the player doing the popping. baltec1 wrote: 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. Sure it is, people like you have convinced me that passive defense for all is the way forward, since you won't even attempt to have reasonable discussions about balancing active mechanics. I see why they are doing this change outside of the ganking, seems like a very reasonable change, and if it helps buff some haulers and such too in light of recent anti-gank nerfs, all the better. Dom Arkaral wrote: Buff the idiots Nerf those that are aware of their surroundings That's not how I see it. I see is as: Buff everyone - including gankers, catalysts will be more resistant to being volleyed off the field now Nerf gankers a little by making their targets a bit more resilient. I'm sure you'll adapt, since you guys are so competent. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 148	Posted - 2016.02.12 15:54:03 - [536] - Quote Thread closed for clean up. After clean up there will be a 24 hour lock to let people cool off and remember this is a thread on the Damage Control Tiericide not on the merits of ganking. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 745	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:12:25 - [537] - Quote as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide. [Caldari Navy Hookbill, Polarbill] Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Republic Fleet Medium Shield Extender 5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket Polarized Rocket Launcher, Scourge Rage Rocket Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Bay Loading Accelerator II This is my polarized hookbill (which keep in mind, polarized launchers use less fitting than t2). I'm using meta 2 webs and meta 3 scram for CPU reasons. I have 205.57/206.25 CPU and 48.3/49.03 Scram/web changes will make it impossible for me to fit this without using implants. The hookbill already has terrible CPU, now with these adjustments i can't even fit tackle on it. I mean hell, the fit has 0% resists and only like 4.7k EHP, its not like its super tanky. Its just good at range controlling and doing damage and getting out. RIP polarbill Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3084	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:15:02 - [538] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Subotai Khan wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead? Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again. EDIT: Tippia, I'm not seeing any argument from you other than assuring us that despite your lack of activity in EVE, you're totally "with it" and know that freighter gankers are desperately in need of help. Whereas kills would seem to indicate that there is no shortage of multibillion isk freighter kills. I think we're just seeing the **** poor gankers complaining here, while the competent ones are already calculating exactly how many catalysts they need to hit buffed freighters. (while also hitting freighters AS WE SHITPOST) CODE slapped one earlier tonght, 70m isk in catalysts for a 3b isk freighter. Compared to the amount of freighters that are flown each day, the amount that are ganked is shockingly low. Less than 0.01% low from what we can gather. Giving them 33% hull resists is hardly on the same level as the wreck hp change. Freighters really dont need the buff. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
X Gallentius Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 2923	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:15:25 - [539] - Quote Shouldn't you want the DCU to emphasize hull at the expense of shield/armor? Counter Proposal: Shift shield/armor resistance increase to hull resistance increase. 1. Increase DCU resistance a bit from this current proposal so that the total EHP of ships stays about the same. 2. Decrease or remove shield/armor resistances to armor/shield. Reason: Armor dudes have EANM's. Shield dudes have Power Diagnostic Systems. JUSTK is recruiting.
Vatik Yomem EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:22:20 - [540] - Quote This has probably been taken up to greater detail before, but the already struggling brawler cruisers are going to have a much harder time with the CPU creep. Quote: [Moa, Moa] Co-Processor II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Large F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Null M x2000 Void M x1000 The Moa is difficult enough to fit as it is, and with the new web and scram tiercide, the range and effectiveness will take a hit.

Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:23:05 - [541] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: Shouldn't you want the DCU to emphasize hull at the expense of shield/armor? Counter Proposal: Shift shield/armor resistance increase to hull resistance increase. 1. Increase DCU resistance a bit from this current proposal so that the total EHP of ships stays about the same. 2. Decrease or remove shield/armor resistances to armor/shield. Reason: Armor dudes have EANM's. Shield dudes have Power Diagnostic Systems. Shields have invuln you mean? And I do have to agree on the proposal to remove/lower armor and shield bonuses whilst favoring hull resist. I wouldn't buff any ship resist profile as the balance would pretty much dissappear Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 430	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:24:38 - [542] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide. A good point. A lot of the tiericides seem to be increasing CPU across the board. Is it my imagination? Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Skyler Hawk The Tuskers The Tuskers Co. 71	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:25:53 - [543] - Quote Xoceac wrote: Can someone answer me this? What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else? Do you even math bro? Hull resists with a T2 damage control will be 59.8% - 0.33 for the new innate hull resistance, plus (0.44*0.67) for the boost from the damage control.
Aethan Deimos EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:32:06 - [544] - Quote Denidil wrote: PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant) [Mackinaw, 2MLU] Internal Force Field Array I Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Survey Scanner II Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1208	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:04:24 - [545] - Quote A redditors feedback on using meta mods to make up for the new shortfall - not me props go to dotpoint90 Perhaps I should have said "modules that are commonly meta'd without gimping your **". Webs? Nope, 20 CPU meta web. New meta web is ~10% weaker than current meta 4 web, and saves 2 CPU. To get the same strength as current meta you need to upgrade to T2, which is an extra 8 CPU. Scrams/disruptors? Nope, 26/32 CPU meta scram/disruptor. New 26 CPU scram has 7.5km range, literally worse all-round than the 26 CPU meta 1 that already exists. To get slightly less gimped, you have to upgrade to a 30 CPU meta scram, which is still worse than the currently popular J5b and Faint Epsilon scrams, which are essentially as good as T2. This and the web changes is a fairly significant nerf to brawlers IMO. New 32 CPU Disruptor is literally the same thing as the 32 CPU Faint Warp Disruptor I, except the new version uses 4 more cap per cycle. Not many people use the Faint Warp Disruptor. I don't think we'll see that change. ECM? Nope. 32 CPU ECMs are getting a 10% jam strength reduction and a 20% optimal reduction relative to their current stats. To get the same performance as current meta 4, spend an extra 16 CPU to upgrade to T2. Tracking computers? Nope. Yeah, these got buffed. Damps? Nope. The new meta damps are all worse than the current meta 4 in both range (~15% worse) and strength (only a little worse), but the T2 that does the same job as the current meta 4 costs 14 extra CPU. Target Painters? Nope. New 16 CPU TP is weaker than the current 16 CPU TP, but they all received a falloff bonus and the T2 got some extra optimal. Not really that significant a change? Cap batteries? Still nope. These modules are basically irrelevant, even post-buff they use eighty billion CPU to fit (60 CPU FRIGATE MODULE WTF) and offer less cap than a single cycle of a booster. Only relevant in the very specific niche where you expect to need to reflect bhaalgorn neuts during triage or something. Sensor Boosters? The only module to deserve the changes in CPU, IMO, because of the new functionality as ECCM. It's also worth noting that in addition to these 2 CPU nerfs there is also a new compact damage module variant saving a whole 5 CPU each for turrets and a whopping 9 CPU each for missiles. The meta damage mods are relevant for missiles, but I'm not so sure about the 5 CPU discount for what is currently meta 2 stats. The DPS hit is fairly significant - for example, three meta 2 heatsinks on a Zealot with Heavy Pulse Lasers does 531 DPS, but two T2 gets 510 DPS and saves you a slot and an extra 20 CPU. The amount of ****** hurf blurf without thinking in this thread is unreal. Yes, a handful of extremely tight fits that don't use damage mods are going to be broken now but as gorski points out here not much is really going to be changing. Except for a near universal reduction in web strength and scram range among T1 frigates, but I'm sure that's not relevant to anyone's gameplay. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/45e57o/can_we_talk_about_the_cpu_bloatplease/czxg07y I'll try and fix the quotes later, on a phone atm
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1208	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:07:05 - [546] - Quote Aethan Deimos wrote: Denidil wrote: PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant) [Mackinaw, 2MLU] Internal Force Field Array I Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Survey Scanner II Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete. Storylines aren't really suitable for generic use.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 438	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:18:39 - [547] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness! However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or ** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that. You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading**
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:26:09 - [548] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Alexis Nightwish wrote: This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness! However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that. You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think some people are quite getting how fundamental this change really is going to be to ship fitting. You could basically minus a low slot on every fit as you knew it that was where the DC would go and you would be stupid to think otherwise (barring a few niche fits). You don't sacrifice anything if you only had the DC bonus Sure you can get more options, but a DC will still be the better option for most fits Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
Alex Harumichi Icecream Audit Office 34	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:30:47 - [549] - Quote Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1209	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:31:20 - [550] - Quote Aethan Deimos wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Aethan Deimos wrote: [quote=Denidil]PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant) [Mackinaw, 2MLU] Internal Force Field Array I Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Survey Scanner II Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.[/quote Storylines aren't really suitable for generic use. Ahh, good point. I assumed it was a new module since I've never seen it before. It would seem, then, that some points made are somewhat justified. To be fair that is my assumption, but it seems likely given the stats, specifically meta level.

Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1209	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:33:36 - [551] - Quote Alex Harumichi wrote: Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently. Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others.
Alex Harumichi Icecream Audit Office 34	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:46:22 - [552] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Alex Harumichi wrote: Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently. Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others. Well, if you can't touch the fitting and have to do it via stats, you'd just have to flat-out nerf Damage Controls across the board. Hard. I'd be fine with that (like I said, I'm tired of it being a must-fit module and I guess CCP is also), but I think that sort of nerf would have large portions of the playerbase screaming bloody murder. Right now, what they are trying to do is nerf the modules themselves, but counterbalance that with a buff to hull structure. I think that's a fairly reasonable path to take, honestly, even though that too will cause lots of extra rebalancing. A flat-out nerf to DCUs (with nothing to compensate) would also throw lots of balance out of whack, so there is no easy, problem-free solution here.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 3553	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:53:04 - [553] - Quote I'm all for making DCUs less mandatory in PVP fits. But the freighter buff is excessive and unwarranted. The wreck HP change doesn't do a thing to the "predator prey" dynamic. This is just a hollow attempt at justifying what is a huge nerf to freighter ganking, something that requires a high level of expertise and organization already. It's probably THE most multiplayer activity in highsec and requires a substantial logistics effort as well as excellent coordination by all players involved. There's not give and take or balance here. This was clearly thought through and considered a good idea. edit: I did once solo a freighter with a Malediction. It took 40 minutes. Thanks for adding to the grind time. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 370	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:58:20 - [554] - Quote This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 406	Posted - 2016.02.12 20:58:48 - [555] - Quote Ashlar Vellum wrote: boo passive DCU. btw what will happen to the hecate hull resistance bonus? I think this is how the Hecate will play out: Currently: 0% base resist, 60% DCII resist, 33.3% defensive mode resist. The way resists combine, it's not 60% + 33.3% = 93.3%. Nor is it 60% + 60%33.3% = 80.3%. Rather, incoming damage is resisted by 60%, then the remaining damage is resisted by 33.3%. So the true hull resist of the Hecate is 60% + (1-60%)33.3% = 73.3%*. (It's worth noting that there's actually no "first" or "then" in this calculation - reducing damage by 33.3% first then the remaining damage by 60% yields the exact same final resist of 73.3%) After proposed changes: 33.3% base resist, 40% DCII resist, 33.3% defensive mode resist. 33.3% is resisted first. Of the remaining 66.6% incoming damage, 40% is then resisted - that's an additional 26.6% damage mitigated, for a total of 60%, meaning 40% of the damage is now making it rhough. (This is why the new hull bonus + new DCII provides the exact same 60% hull resist as we have today.) Of the remaining 40% of incoming damage, 33.3% of that is resisted - which is a further 13.3% of the original damage that is prevented. 33.3% + 26.6% + 13.3% = 73.3%, exactly the same as before. The above is a roundabout way of saying that these changes will have no effect whatsoever on the Hecate's effective hull HP. This is neither a buff nor a nerf for the Hecate. - CCP descriptions say "33%" in various places, but the way the math works out it's clear they're actually using 1/3 as the number, not 0.30.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1209	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:02:21 - [556] - Quote Alex Harumichi wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Alex Harumichi wrote: Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently. Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others. Well, if you can't touch the fitting and have to do it via stats, you'd just have to flat-out nerf Damage Controls across the board. Hard. I'd be fine with that (like I said, I'm tired of it being a must-fit module and I guess CCP is also), but I think that sort of nerf would have large portions of the playerbase screaming bloody murder. Right now, what they are trying to do is nerf the modules themselves, but counterbalance that with a buff to hull structure. I think that's a fairly reasonable path to take, honestly, even though that too will cause lots of extra rebalancing. A flat-out nerf to DCUs (with nothing to compensate) would also throw lots of balance out of whack, so there is no easy, problem-free solution here. Yeah but attacking the fittings is.....well it's a really weird way to go about it. Someone else posted here that there are actually two IFFAs. Hopefully Fozzie grabbed the wrong one for the paste. If that IFFA was 17, complaints start to drop off rapidly.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3084	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:11:33 - [557] - Quote As for making DCU 's less mandatory, the DCU still provides better armour resists than a third EANM and is the only module to add resists to shield and the hull bonus is still pretty huge. The only ships i can see not using DCU 's are ships that didnt use them before. Making them passive is apparently how they were always meant to be, but maybe they need nerfed harder. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 33	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:18:34 - [558] - Quote So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2592	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:20:30 - [559] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? It's more like 15 pages but if you feel like starting all over, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.
SilentAsTheGrave Aliastra Gallente Federation 375	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:20:32 - [560] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: But the freighter buff is excessive and unwarranted. It is not excessive and is warranted. I for one love these changes.

Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:34:01 - [561] - Quote Quoting a very old post from when the DCU got implemented, the original dev (i don't remember who) said they wanted the DCU to be an active module with a "long cycle" and very little cap requirement to avoid to encourage AFK play styles and actually reward the player from being there, turning it on every jump / undock, compared to the player autopiloting afk. People mostly commented about the effects of this choice against cap warfares doctrines, and the answer was that with so little cap requirements and the server ticks it was high unlikely to have it turned off. I actually agree with this old dev post, and I think the DCU should stay an active module. On the freighter argument, it is true that with a 5 weeks release schedule they can revert easily any buff they did, or buff something else on the gank side, if it turns out it destroys that play style.
Circumstantial Evidence 255	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:34:13 - [562] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? The discussion was getting overheated and more about the argument itself, than the issues. I think the issues are well represented by what remains.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:38:29 - [563] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? I think this thread is more about "are we killing some fits with this change?" and "do you think making it passive is a good idea", rather than talking about freight balance and ganking profitability
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 34	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:43:05 - [564] - Quote This OP is very uninviting for actual feedback. What is the point of giving actual feedback on a convoluted change that is only designed that way to nerf ganking? If you just want to nerfbat ganking that is fine but don't expect decent feedback. Some actual feedback. - Review how balanced freighter ganking is with the recent wreck ehp nerf. The wreck popping mechanic was beyond broken, it needed to be fixed. If I wanted to I could have solo killed every freighter wreck without any problems. - If anything needs fixing about ganking, it's not EHP. - Make damage controls passive, do a tiericide but get rid of the 33% inherent hull resist and any changes that result from it.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 34	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:44:00 - [565] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? I think this thread is more about "are we killing some fits with this change?" and "do you think making it passive is a good idea", rather than talking about freight balance and ganking profitability I don't care what feedback ccp wants. I'm giving the feedback that is relevant to my experience in game.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1209	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:49:33 - [566] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? Except it was more like 15 pages of guff where you lot were just arguing in circles and the change itself was stopped being discussed after about post #3 Feedback welcome, WAA I HAT TEH GANKARSSSSZZZZ or WAAAAA TEH BEARSSSZZZZ not so much, not in this thread at least.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 228	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:56:17 - [567] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent. See that makes sense to me. But then why not just buff freighters structure HP rather than changing a module that affects almost all ships, and then add some knee-jerk reaction like changing to base HP of ALL SHIPS to compensate for it? I know the answer but I feel like I'd be rude to say this was a make-work project for some bored devs.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 35	Posted - 2016.02.12 21:59:31 - [568] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent. See that makes sense to me. But then why not just buff freighters structure HP rather than changing a module that affects almost all ships, and then add some knee-jerk reaction like changing to base HP of ALL SHIPS to compensate for it? I know the answer but I feel like I'd be rude to say this was a make-work project for some bored devs. I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 228	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:00:40 - [569] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted ^^ Exactly! Unnecessarily complicated for what they wanted to achieve. And there will be negative consequences to other ships because of it. :P
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 35	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:08:43 - [570] - Quote I'm not going back to review what posts were deleted so i'm reiterating. What is CCP's feeling about the exhumer rebalance so many patches ago? Do they really need even more free ehp? I think they can only agree that they killed a lot of interesting gameplay and some of the biggest player run events. CCP should go look at a high sec Ice belt and just feel terrible about what they have done to a once intersting part of the game. They are about to make similar mistake with these changes. The meta will shift to where freighter ganking is something you can only do for fun on a saturday with friends, not a way to play this game.

Mag's Rabble Inc. TransentienT 21277	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:14:41 - [571] - Quote Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 772	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:39:19 - [572] - Quote As a Freighter Pilot, why I think this change needs more thought: In June 2014 when Freighters/JFs were given lowslots to provide choices around play, one aspect of the increased tank was that the changes provided some good options for smart players to mitigate their risk: CCP Fozzie (2014) wrote: ...we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense. We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk. That was a welcome change as it gave options for tank or cargo and smart players that do manage risk gained an advantage over their competitors because they could easily run max cargo, while keeping themselves safe. For quite a while now CCP have been talking about the benefits of rich experiences as having a positive benefit on player retention and wanting players to be involved in more group based activities. So why buff AFK play at all, which is what this change does, while giving no benefit to those that already manage their risk effectively? This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Up to now, there has been an advantage that they can fit max cargo, take larger contracts, take more smaller contracts at a time and potentially out earn the solo AFK haulers who need to fit max tank in order to manage some of the risk of being AFK. Now however, that playing field has been leveled. AFK play is receiving a significant buff to the point where they'll more easily be able to fit max tank and successfully haul AFK. The ability of group play to earn more than solo play is being reduced and in some cases, 2 players working cooperatively might end up earning less individually than a solo AFK hauler. Giving an EHP buff to solo haulers so that they don't need to manage their risk, reduces the exact thing that was highlighted as a plus from the previous change. This change provides nothing to those smart players identified before, and only benefits the lazy pilots they compete with. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2937	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:40:31 - [573] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? No, 10 pages were wasted on whether or not freighters should be banked or whether banking was good/bad/hard/easy. The fact that we diverged to spats on isk tanking for entire pages shows how far off track they got.
Pandora Deninard Combat Applications and Logistics Group 0	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:57:46 - [574] - Quote If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game).
Sean Parisi Blackrise Vanguard 722	Posted - 2016.02.12 22:59:20 - [575] - Quote Even though its a valid playstyle; I really could care less whether or not the freighters or exhumers are getting an HP buff or not. Bring more friends and choose different targets - crisis adverted. I am more so concerned at the possibility of how much this will buff Gallente ship lines further. The passive 33% will be applied to all, but particularly buff Gallente ships. Might be good, who knows. I do like the fact that it encourages fitting more modules other then the standard DCU.
Sean Parisi Blackrise Vanguard 722	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:00:27 - [576] - Quote Pandora Deninard wrote: If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game). I think its more so an issue of people nit picking that particular comment. Which was said as more of a "We know you will get upset about this gankers" as opposed to "We are only changing every DCU and all the fits its relevant to in the game because Freighters Hurr"
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 41	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:06:18 - [577] - Quote Mag's wrote: Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs. Notwithstanding the whole ganker vs anti-ganker fight, for many pvp fits now it's going to be an actual fitting choice, rather than a requirement, to fit a DCU. This is going to shake up the meta, especially for armor and kiting fits. For example, it might be advantageous to fit an EANM instead of a DCU to a tormentor, or simply another heat sink. In any event, it gives players a new set of options, instead of making one module mandatory. Not a bad thing at all, it's simply a change that gives players new choices. Also, I'd like to address this: Quote: The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity. It's just one more keystroke, one extra button press that adds an extra opportunity for module lag or to take away from actually piloting your spacecraft. Functionally, the cap cost did nothing, even under neut pressure. Like training skills or death clones, it does nothing to add fun and meaningful game play for players. By extending this line of reasoning, do you think it would be a good idea to give all passive modules a trivial capacitor cost and cycle time in the name of emergent game play, or at some point does it simply become keystrokes for the sake of keystrokes? I'm happy that CCP has done the right thing here and excised the majority of the ganker vs anti-ganker argument. Between the two of them, they're a toxic community that poison every discussion they're a part of. They're so caught up in their war with one another that they refuse to even acknowledge that other players might have a stake, or even input into this.
Circumstantial Evidence 255	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:11:41 - [578] - Quote This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 773	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:18:45 - [579] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before. Yes, I totally agree. It's not directly, it just has an indirect benefit to those ships. For a lot of situations, this is a great change. For pvp fits, a DC is just about compulsory in many cases and when working on a new fit, it's one of the first modules to consider fitting because of the benefit it provides. But, since this is about rebalancing the DC and fitting options around its use, why buff ships that can't even fit it? They don't have the option now at all, so it isn't a consideration of play with those ships anyway. Why buff those ships, when previous buffs have already accounted for their inability to fit a DC? Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 773	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:31:00 - [580] - Quote FT Cold wrote: Mag's wrote: ]The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity. I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed. It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots. T1/T2 industrials, Orca and Bowhead are good examples. I can fit a Damage Control on all of them and when I haul, I gain advantage over AFK pilots because I can activate the module to gain the additional resists. Switching the module to passive provides equal benefit to AFK pilots that they don't currently gain, particularly for example when autopiloting. I'm not saying this change is bad, just that it isn't a 'keep Eve hard' change. There's nothing hard about activating a DC, but you do have to be present to do so. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 229	Posted - 2016.02.12 23:38:32 - [581] - Quote ALSO, this is NOT tiericide. Tiericide was initiated to get rid of all the "tiered" modules like meta 3 etc. that nobody ever used. None of these new threads are tiericide, they are nerfs in disguise. These changes consist mostly of *rebalances*. Ones that nobody asked for or wanted as far as I can tell. If it was tiericide there would be no change to the CPU costs or effects of these items, only removal of the unnecessary clutter of a bunch of different Meta varieties (which doesn't seem to be happening here).
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2971	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:05:11 - [582] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed. It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots.. No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7201	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:31:05 - [583] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted But then that;s ot what the change is for, the change is part of the normal tiercide that is happening to all modules, the fact that it balances out ganking a bit is a minor part of the change. All around it's a pretty good idea, reduces damage control as straight dependency and gets rid of the additional click by making it passive. Like they said way back when they removed clone levels, having something you have to click because that is the only good option is not good gameplay. Thumbs up CCP. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 776	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:42:22 - [584] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed. It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots.. No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time. I'm currently looking for quotes either way. Haven't found any yet. Will keep looking. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 776	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:46:55 - [585] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1210	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:48:28 - [586] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. +1 If you need your EHP in a non-combat ship something has gone fundamentally wrong somewhere.
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:53:39 - [587] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control. Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. Don't mind our friend Lucas here, I totally agree with you Afk don't need a buff It'll just attract more bots Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3085	Posted - 2016.02.13 00:57:52 - [588] - Quote Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the wreck hp change. edit-wreck not structure EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 779	Posted - 2016.02.13 01:08:43 - [589] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the structure hp change. This change is about balance for the Damage Control. That's where it should stay. Freighters can't fit a damage control, so don't need a buff because of a Damage Control nerf. They just don't need to be affected by this change at all, since it's about a module that isn't relevant to them. edit: Didn't see your edit, so my response is to your original post, not the change making it about wrecks. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3085	Posted - 2016.02.13 01:28:36 - [590] - Quote yeah i derped. But if freighters dont get the resist buff, some point down the line it begs a million threads in the way of 'why dont freighters have the same resists as other ships.' So get around that by nerfing freighter HP at the same time. Assuming CCP dont want to buff freighter tanks fingers crossed EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7201	Posted - 2016.02.13 01:56:07 - [591] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. I didn't say other opinions weren't valid, I just think you're being very selective about what constitutes a benefit. It's the equivalent of saying "insurance doesn't benefit me because I haven't crashed yet". Violet Crumble wrote: There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. You don't all the time you aren't being ganked. You sure as hell will use the EHP of your ship once you get picked out as a target and they suicide tackle then bump you before your webber gets you into warp. Violet Crumble wrote: And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance between active, group based hauling and AFK hauling is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control. Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships. A ship that used to be able to fit a DC can now fit another module instead and still maintain over half the benefit of a DC. As long as the change doesn't put an AFK pilot ahead of an equivalent active pilot, I don't see the problem. Dom Arkaral wrote: Afk don't need a buff It'll just attract more bots Bots are active, genius. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 121	Posted - 2016.02.13 02:10:21 - [592] - Quote So, let's see, 40% of 67% is... 26.8%, plus 33%, yields 59.8%, which is basically identical to t2 now. That's cool.
SilentAsTheGrave Aliastra Gallente Federation 376	Posted - 2016.02.13 02:19:34 - [593] - Quote 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.
Helene Fidard CTRL-Q 35	Posted - 2016.02.13 02:24:22 - [594] - Quote I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide. Hey! I don't know about you but I'm joining CTRL-Q
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 231	Posted - 2016.02.13 02:45:12 - [595] - Quote Helene Fidard wrote: I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide. They called it tiericide so people wouldn't realize fozzie was swinging the nerf bat again >:( a lot of the proposed changes have increased CPU requirements across the board.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 779	Posted - 2016.02.13 02:46:44 - [596] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships. A ship that used to be able to fit a DC can now fit another module instead and still maintain over half the benefit of a DC. As long as the change doesn't put an AFK pilot ahead of an equivalent active pilot, I don't see the problem. It's all outlined in my original post on this topic. Buffing AFK over active pilots is the issue I have with this, when Damage Controls can't even be fit to freighters to begin with. But that feedback is already there and if CCP pick up on it and agree, then great. If they don't then ok, that's also fine. I don't however see any point discussing it further with you. Anyone else, sure. But you, I have no desire to enter into pointless circular discussion. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Frayn Bantam The Chasers 2	Posted - 2016.02.13 05:26:52 - [597] - Quote Just a quick paste from our jabber room, if CCP is even reading this thread here it is Warr Akini wrote: As a reminder of the history of suicide ganking nerfs in recent history: -No GCC insurance -Kill right revamp -Suspect flag on 'illegal' looting -Cannot loot can while warp drive engaged -Lowslots on freighters (see: 700k EHP Anshars, and now 1m EHP Anshars) -No incentive for Bowheads to run anything less than full tank -Awoxing nerf -Security status tick nerf -Shifting HP from hull to armor and shield, buffing anti-ganking logistics -Mining barge/exhumer straight EHP buff -Sec status for aggression now is the same as if you killed the target -Hyperdunking nerf matched with what buffs exactly? BTW it doesn't actually matter if any of those contradict with earlier nerfs, the fact is that they are all unchecked, unmatched changes that were explicitly intended to nerf ganking.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2909	Posted - 2016.02.13 06:10:00 - [598] - Quote Why not give freighters more CPU now? IIRC the reason they were kep low was to prevent them from fitting damage controls. Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 779	Posted - 2016.02.13 06:49:33 - [599] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: ...Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference. Obviously, only Fozzie can answer that, but looking at the numbers, what real benefit would that provide as opposed to the current fitting option of 3 bulkheads? That is, if you are going for tank, then in order to fit a damage control to provide defense, you need to remove a bulkhead, which provides similar defense. Using an Obelisk with bulkheads as an example: 367K EHP, with 269K raw hull HP at 0 resist In order to fit a damage control, 1 bulkhead would need to be removed, -54K the raw hull HP: 313K EHP with 215K raw HP at 0 resist The addition of a damage control would have the effect of increasing the hull by 40%, which is +86K, but that's not applying base resists or reducing the hull HP to compensate for fitting a DC. So if you drop the hull HP down in order to add resists, that just means that fitting a damage control would just approach exactly the same EHP as fitting 3 bulkheads anyway. Effectively, you can already achieve the same result with just the bulkhead fittings, without needing to adjust fitting on Freighters, or knock their hull HP down. Why bother when the outcome is effectively the same? Just fit 3 bulkheads, which is already possible. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 203	Posted - 2016.02.13 10:40:52 - [600] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Why? Please dont.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17401	Posted - 2016.02.13 10:49:19 - [601] - 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.
Mag's Rabble Inc. TransentienT 21280	Posted - 2016.02.13 10:53:47 - [602] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Why not give freighters more CPU now? IIRC the reason they were kep low was to prevent them from fitting damage controls. Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference. IIRC they didn't want freighters to have the ability to fit a DC. They also did a balance pass when fittings were added and ended up at the EHP they deemed correct. There is no justification for an EHP increase, as they were never intended to be able to fit this module. But let's not lose sight of other issues. Freighters are not the only problem here and that's why this idea needs a complete rethink. It's lazy and quite frankly looks like it was done, for the sake of doing something to the DC. Rather than it needed to be done. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Fraxxton Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:12:57 - [603] - Quote 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."
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1100	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:20:26 - [604] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 this means they are getting buffed twice for the lack of a DCU. 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. I mean, off the top of my head if CCP want to make the DCU less powerful why not split it up into shield/armour/structure mods so you can select which area of tank you want. You could then add more faction and officer mods and spread them around to provide even more options in the LP markets too. This way you don't have to give an arbitrary buff to everything that will be overpowered on a number of ships out there. No, structure resists are being buffed specifically to buff freighter EHP as a counter to the buff to wreck HP. As dumb as that is. The Damage Control is being nerfed so that resists with one fit will stay the same as before.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2211	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:22:22 - [605] - Quote It seams to me if you don't want negative feedback about the ganking nerf you should not create a feedback thread where it is explicitly stated that this is a ganking nerf and ask for our opinions. To just delete the feedback and call everyone hot headed and send them away to cool off is not really the way how you talk to your customer base. If you don't want feedback or don't care and go on with it anyway, then why do you even make this threads? Wouldn't it be easier to just inform everyone in a devblog instead of pretending you care about feedback and waste everyone's time while doing it? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17403	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:29:50 - [606] - 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.
Fraxxton Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:44:20 - [607] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The AG mob turned it into a shitfest as they always do without posting anything helpful, just "hur dur tearz". You know this is not true. I followed this thread closely, while there were meaningless posts on both sides, you personally got cornered by some posts and had no valid answer. My point is, it does not matter if a player is pro / contra / indifferent in terms of ganking, players should be able to speak their mind. Why the "off topic" posts have been deleted instead of moved is beyond me.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1102	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:48:45 - [608] - Quote None of these deleted posts were off-topic. None of them broke any rules. None of them quoted posts that were deleted. These aren't the only ones that were deleted unnecessarily, but they're just a few of the posts that were constructive and yet got deleted anyway for no reason. http://eve-search.com/thread/468977-1/page/1#16 EvilweaselFinance wrote: gankers received the tiniest of buffs so it's time for another massive nerfbat to ganking http://eve-search.com/thread/468977-1/page/2#40 Silver Isu wrote: So you fixed a completely broken, uncounterable mechanic. This does not justify a massive blanket buff to freighter EHP. Not speaking about all the other gank targets as well. Gankers punish people for stupidity. Untanked people oblivious to their surroundings are prime targets. Now you are seriously nerfing ganking by giving all gank targets a free EHP buff. During the past few years CCP has shown a consistent trend to nerf ganking. Every "buff" has been met with several nerfs, so the predator and prey environment is already out of whack. http://eve-search.com/thread/468977-1/page/2#56 Agent Known wrote: You're forgetting that many ganked freighters have a bunch of loot which is the whole point of the gank to begin with (unless you're bored and gank an empty JF). Yes, more manpower will be required and it will increase the floor of when it's profitable to gank based on cargo contents (so, more than 1b in a freighter to maybe 1.5b before profitability? Not sure how many extra ships). Suicide ganking is a zero-risk exercise, so there should be more of a cost to essentially get billions in loot that's still quite an amount even if split between more people. http://eve-search.com/thread/468977-1/page/2#58 Altrue wrote: Good job, nice execution. Still though, the real issue with suicide ganking isn't so much the kill part, it's the endless bumping beforehand... EHPs don't actually matter that much when you put them in comparison with other parts of a suicide gank. I haven't even gotten to the 100th post yet of a thread that has had over 600 posts since it was created, and already long chains of comments have been deleted because the start of the chain was deemed off-topic. Why? I can only surmise because they were discussing how this change relates to suicide ganking, which isn't off-topic because CCP Fozzie explicitly specified the connection in the first post. So basically, as usual, ISD ruins a thread because they don't know what they're doing.
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2016.02.13 12:58:39 - [609] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. We had the same type of people in the battleship tiercide thread and the best tactic we found was to post fits and results of the changes on said fits and every time one of them popped up spouting rubbish we shot them down with facts and continued debating the changes in a constructive manner that resulted in several changes being made. I'm sorry, but from the perspective of an outsider, both parties are responsible for the disaster that this thread has been. It's only served as a distraction for people attempting to argue the merits of this change where, in terms of the number of players it applies to, matters most. The discourse between the ganking and anti-ganking communities has been reprehensible and you've been collectively punished for your behavior, and rightfully so. Also, I'm curious as to what your reasoning behind saying that this is an unwarrented buff to non industrial ships is. The structure buff applies to all ships equally, and making the DC less mandatory for combat fits will eventually increase the diversity of fittings for most classes of ships. I've seen a few people argue that kiting builds like the slicer or tristan (which is still somewhat OP) will benefit more from this change, but brawling and scram kiting and brawling fits, such as the beam tormentor or merlin, will now have a greater viability when fitting a second damage mod instead of a DC. Releasing the tormentor from the requirement of fitting a DC gives players a fantastic new opportunity to fit their ship in a surprising way. That's not a bad thing at all. Some people have pointed out that making the DC passive is a de-facto buff to afk t1 and t2 haulers, and it might be; to be completely honest I do share the concerns voiced over AFK gameplay. For other players though, it's simply an annoyance. It's just one more thing you have to do every time you're expecting combat and serves no function other than triviality. If the cap costs were significant, or it were an overheatable module, I would feel differently about this, but it's not. It's just too similar to passive hardeners to justify it not being passive itself. Saying that these changes are lazy is selling the devs short. They've come up with a good solution the the ubiquity of the DC without obsoleting it and at the same time made new fits possible.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2205	Posted - 2016.02.13 13:42:12 - [610] - Quote FT Cold wrote: Saying that these changes are lazy is selling the devs short. They've come up with a good solution the the ubiquity of the DC without obsoleting it and at the same time made new fits possible. No, these changes are lazy, at least in regard to freighters. Raising the bar across the board to attack them, for no demonstrable reason (they could just reduce the structure HP to compensate for the 33% resistance if they wanted) is a lazy way to balance freighter safety/vulnerability in highsec. It makes everyone safer, even AFK players, at zero cost or trade-off to these players. In other words, a straight-out nerf to criminal players in highsec. If CCP deemed freighters were dying too frequently in highsec, there are a myriad of changes one can imagine to make active freighter hauling safer. Instead, they are apparently going with the lazy choice of just making it cost more for anyone to attack them. This devalues the work of active haulers, forcing them to compete more with the already-very-safe-but-now-even-safer AFK haulers, reduces the amount of destruction of industrial ships decreasing the value of the work of the industrialists who built these ships and the goods that are lost when they are destroyed, and makes it even harder for criminals to gather sufficient players to even try to attack them. In short, it removes reasons and the ability for many different types of players to play the game, for no reason, or at least no reason that was provided by CCP Fozzie in the OP (and no, it is not an unavoidable side-effect of these changes despite how he presented it). I encourage CCP to reconsider. If they really think freighter hauling is getting too dangerous, they should consider some other change that does not just increase the number of AFK haulers, silently plying the trade routes safe behind massive EHP walls from attack from all but the largest groups in the game, further sucking the life and conflict out of highsec.

Fraxxton Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2016.02.13 14:17:46 - [611] - Quote FT Cold wrote: The discourse between the ganking and anti-ganking communities has been reprehensible and you've been collectively punished for your behavior, and rightfully so. I respectfully disagree, in my opinion punishment is completely uncalled for. Also, while I admit I sometimes feel like banging stupid peoples' heads together, I try to keep the following maxim in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, meant to paraphrase Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance GÇö "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.")
Lugh Crow-Slave 1559	Posted - 2016.02.13 14:23:52 - [612] - Quote HTFU had never been more warranted than in this thread Citadel worm hole tax
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2216	Posted - 2016.02.13 15:12:00 - [613] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: HTFU had never been more warranted than in this thread HTFU is something you say if someone cries about a loss in the game. It is hardly appropriate if CCP changes the game and someone voices their opinion. Are you just trying to troll and derail the thread again or is there any constructive feedback you can share with us? If not, kindly, gtfo. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Astecus Astral Sanctuary - 7th Division 80	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:00:15 - [614] - Quote As someone using EFT/Pyfa a lot, I love DCs becoming more optional on most ships. This makes fitting more fun! It becoming passive is also a very welcome change, and also makes them more interesting to fit on cloaked ships. As the creator of the Anti-ganking channel and Anti-ganking.net, I must admit I'm surprised by this sudden significant buff to freighter EHP though. It makes me wonder if this is a workaround for having trouble finding a good fix for horribly overpowered bumping that often supertackle freighters for hours. Bumping seems difficult to fix, as I still haven't heard about a solution that I really believe in. But it really needs a fix, and when it gets one, I believe freighter ganking will change quite dramatically, more than this big buff to EHP will cause. But until then, this EHP buff might serve as a workaround, albeit not a good one, as it for instance doesn't affect the orca or bowhead that much, two ships that are also often supertackled by bumping (since they should always fit DC previously anyway). Regarding the IFFA, I do believe raising it from 17 to 20 CPU will break several of my fits. That said, a CPU difference of over 43% between it and T2 is quite a lot, so it's understandable you want to close this gap somewhat. And since some hull resist will be kept, breaking some fits might be an acceptable loss. And I just realized that it might take some time before I get used to all the new options from new faction/officer DCs. A comment to some gankers here - freighters should never be balanced around being profitable to gank, as this turns them into mainly a resource to be exploited, similar to rats. The thing about rats is that they don't have feelings and a playstyle that should be respected. Sometimes freighters decide to haul enough to give gankers a profit opportunity, but balancing should never be about giving gankers the ability to expect a steady stream of such opportunities. That would turn ganking into 'ratting'. Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1465	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:12:27 - [615] - Quote Astecus wrote: As someone using EFT/Pyfa a lot, I love DCs becoming more optional on most ships. This makes fitting more fun! It becoming passive is also a very welcome change, and also makes them more interesting to fit on cloaked ships. As the creator of the Anti-ganking channel and Anti-ganking.net, I must admit I'm surprised by this sudden significant buff to freighter EHP though. It makes me wonder if this is a workaround for having trouble finding a good fix for horribly overpowered bumping that often supertackle freighters for hours. Bumping seems difficult to fix, as I still haven't heard about a solution that I really believe in. But it really needs a fix, and when it gets one, I believe freighter ganking will change quite dramatically, more than this big buff to EHP will cause. But until then, this EHP buff might serve as a workaround, albeit not a good one, as it for instance doesn't affect the orca or bowhead that much, two ships that are also often supertackled by bumping (since they should always fit DC previously anyway). Regarding the IFFA, I do believe raising it from 17 to 20 CPU will break several of my fits. That said, a CPU difference of over 43% between it and T2 is quite a lot, so it's understandable you want to close this gap somewhat. And since some hull resist will be kept, breaking some fits might be an acceptable loss. And I just realized that it might take some time before I get used to all the new options from new faction/officer DCs. A comment to some gankers here - freighters should never be balanced around being profitable to gank, as this turns them into mainly a resource to be exploited, similar to rats. The thing about rats is that they don't have feelings and a playstyle that should be respected. Sometimes freighters decide to haul enough to give gankers a profit opportunity, but balancing should never be about giving gankers the ability to expect a steady stream of such opportunities. That would turn ganking into 'ratting'. Eve isn't a place that worries about feelings too much, but to tell you the truth, what real life cops would stop the aggressor, then let his buddies haul off the goods? Maybe Concord should recover the loot from illegal kills and return it to its owner. You could still gank to harrass your enemies' supply lines, get some vengeance, whatever. You just wouldn't profit from it. Unless the target was legally shootable, of course. Do not run. We are your friends.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 373	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:18:57 - [616] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: Eve isn't a place that worries about feelings too much, but to tell you the truth, what real life cops would stop the aggressor, then let his buddies haul off the goods? Maybe Concord should recover the loot from illegal kills and return it to its owner. EVE is a GAME. What exactly is FUN about real life cops?
Mag's Rabble Inc. TransentienT 21284	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:19:06 - [617] - Quote Just when you thought you'd heard it all. We get Concord returning loot. We can file this idea together with all the otherJust one more nerf and it will be balanced ideas. Thanks. I see we're going wildly off topic again. Bumping and loot. Great stuff. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1465	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:20:12 - [618] - Quote This is going to be an interesting set of changes. Without looking closely at all, I hope the pg and cpu numbers are such that none of my fits get nerfed in the final evaluation. I can't wait to play with some fits and see how things work out, though. Kind of excited about this one. Lot of interesting new fitting possiblities here, maybe... Thanks! Do not run. We are your friends.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 374	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:31:08 - [619] - Quote How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT.
Ashlar Vellum PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 232	Posted - 2016.02.13 16:41:25 - [620] - Quote Fozzie would be nice to have more meta 1 options. One meta DCU is kinda scarce, consider adding one more, like: DCU Name - 1PWG - 18CPU - 10%Armor - 8%Shield - 30%Hull - MetaLevel 1 (imo will just give more options for fitting and won't outshine IFFA,T2 or 'Basic' DCUs)

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7203	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:08:36 - [621] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 this means they are getting buffed twice for the lack of a DCU. They certainly aren't getting buffed, since according to you the old freighter changes were a nerf as you used to be able to have both tank and cargo and now have to pick, so in reality they got nerfed with the warp speed changes, nerfed again with the rebalance, and are now getting buffed. Sounds reasonable to me. baltec1 wrote: The AG mob turned it into a shitfest as they always do without posting anything helpful, just "hur dur tearz". Apparently you haven't seen the countless threads full of code members calling every other post tears. For some reason when other players get their playstyles nuked, everything they post is tears, but an increase in EHP - which won't stop ganking - and everything you guys post is supposedly reasonable? At the end of the day CCP will make changes and some people will like them, others will hate them, but it's about looking at how the change affects the game as a whole, and with this one with a few tweaks to some of the module stats it looks pretty sound. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mag's Rabble Inc. TransentienT 21288	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:15:40 - [622] - Quote This year's award for best mental gymnastics goes to Lucas Kell. Congratulations sir. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 328	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:26:16 - [623] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. If everyone in CODE is needed then maybe CODE has too few active people? You and your group have repeatedly been saying 'htfu' and 'get more friends' as a blanket reply to anything anyone who disagreed with you would bring up while continuously derailing all discussions you didn't like. Karma is not without a sense of irony, it seems. As for the changes, now you need to bring 10 more people in the worst possible scenario and still you're whining in a manner very similar to worst 'plebs' as you like to call them. This attitude towards others you have, the 'plebs vs us' attitude (whatever 'us' is in this case) and the idea that your is the only 'correct' way to play the game are just some of the reasons why you're toxic for the game. I'm sure that very few people will miss you once you leave, and since you've already announced it on several occasions, please do leave already and stop whining here. Also, can I have your stuff?
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 375	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:40:01 - [624] - Quote Just ten more people? JUST ten more people? Just TEN MORE people? DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 318	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:40:53 - [625] - Quote People are upset over how hypocritical CCP has been in recent times and how one sided CCP has been towards ganking. Their reasoning for this substantial EHP buff for freighters is based on a QOL change to ganking, but when hyperdunking was removed there was absolutely no ganking buff implemented with it. Hyperdunking's removal was quite a bit more substantial than wreck shooting. I'll post a couple undeniable facts for you: Wreck shooting was an incredibly low barrier to entry (15 minute alt) method that had absolutely no counterplay unless the pilot made a very stupid and hard to make mistake. It was a method that consistently allowed a 2 million isk thrasher to deny hundreds of billions of loot that 15-40 people worked together to achieve. It was a punishment that could have completely broke the freighter ganking game. Wreck shooting was absolutely in need of a nerf, and it was nerfed because it makes no sense to have one guy be able to thwart the efforts of 20 guys. But it's still possible to do. You can still do it cost effectively with two people and still beat our general ganking in the (iskdestroyed/costofships) ratio. You just need to being an extra friend. The problem with this EHP change is, once again, annoyance. The reasoning behind it is hypocritical, and it is completely unneeded. This just makes it impossible for anyone other than CODE or miniluv to gank in highsec. It makes it impossible for the small guys to compete.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 318	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:41:42 - [626] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Just ten more people? JUST ten more people? Just TEN MORE people? DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF? He's completely out of touch. You'd think a guy who can't even organize 4 or 5 guys into doing something useful could talk about 'just getting 10 extra dudes' lol
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7203	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:46:28 - [627] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: If everyone in CODE is needed then maybe CODE has too few active people? You and your group have repeatedly been saying 'htfu' and 'get more friends' as a blanket reply to anything anyone who disagreed with you would bring up while continuously derailing all discussions you didn't like. Karma is not without a sense of irony, it seems. This. It's strange to see how badly people can react to a minor change when it's against them. Masao Kurata wrote: Just ten more people? JUST ten more people? Just TEN MORE people? DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF? Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: in the worst possible scenario Remember though, this thread is not about complaining and threatening to ragequit because ganking might be marginally more difficult, it's about constructive feedback for the whole change. Globby wrote: People are upset over how hypocritical CCP has been in recent times and how one sided CCP has been towards ganking. Ganking has literally no opposition. Whether that's down to mechanics or you guys being so damn good, it reaches a point where CCP may want to step in to encourage more varied content. Just sayin' The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 435	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:46:43 - [628] - Quote Can we look at the whole freighter thing from a different perspective? Let's examine this angle. Freighters were specifically designed to never be able to use a DC unit. It was spelled out numerous times that they were designed to have lowslots but never enough CPU to use a DC unit. Never. Never. Never. It was reasoned they had so much HP already, that any bonus to hull would be over the top. So when DC units get nerfed, and a portion of their former power gets passively put into everybody's hull points, how does it make sense to give that bonus to a ship that was specifically designed to not carry it? They can't lose what they never had and never could have. That's like nerfing hictor script range, but giving every ship longer points to compensate. Only the ships designed to carry the nerfed module should be considered for rebuffing. Ships like shuttles and freighters cannot be the beneficiary of hull resists they were specifically designed to never have. If any combat pilot simply asked for a buff to his EHP, you'd tell him he'd have to take a serious nerf elsewhere to get that. This is a straight buff for any ship that could not previously carry a DCU, so what nerf do freighters get to compensate? Less shields and armor? Cut their warp speed in half? Double their align time? Reduce their lowslots to one? Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7203	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:55:12 - [629] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: It was spelled out numerous times that they were designed to have lowslots but never enough CPU to use a DC unit. Never. Never. Never. They still won't be able to. Khan Wrenth wrote: It was reasoned they had so much HP already, that any bonus to hull would be over the top. Any bonus? No, it was reasoned that with so much hull HP, a 60% across the board resist would be too much, not "any" bonus. Khan Wrenth wrote: So when DC units get nerfed, and a portion of their former power gets passively put into everybody's hull points, how does it make sense to give that bonus to a ship that was specifically designed to not carry it? They can't lose what they never had and never could have. It makes sense because it keeps ships in line. Consider that a ship that can currently fit a DC will be getting two buffs rather than one, they get a base bonus to their resists plus the feeing up of a previously used low slot, which they can choose to use a new DC to achieve a higher resist than the old DC or to use a different module to boost them in another area. Ships that couldn't previously fit the DC will only get the base buff and no additional slot. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3085	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:00:16 - [630] - Quote 'get more friends' doesn't have the same impact when you're talking about one of the last groups in hi-sec even capable of freighter ganking compared to telling you to bring one friend to web your freighter or help you gank a wreck. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 150	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:07:41 - [631] - Quote Removed a few off topic post and those discussing forum moderation. If you have issues with the way forums are being moderated please file a ticket and Internal Affairs will investigate. Quote: Why Delete post instead of moving them? ISD does not have the ability to move individual post to a new thread. Deleted post are veiwable by CCP, they are just not visible to normal viewers. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 435	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:19:40 - [632] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: They still won't be able to. Except the part where they now get 1/3 of one for free. And again, they're getting a buff designed the counter the nerfing of a module they could not equip in the first place. Again, I cite my hictor example. Why should ships that can't use hictor bubbles benefit from a bubble nerf? Now your answer to that, which I am not ignoring, was this... Lucas Kell wrote: It makes sense because it keeps ships in line In line, with what? A freighter does not compete with any ship except other freighters in terms of carrying capacity. HP becomes a factor only when attacked. If the freighter is a wartarget or in lower sec areas, the issue is moot anyway. He's gonna buy the farm. But the already enormous HP wall freighters have getting upped even more only serves to hinder suicide ganking in highsec. Freighter health is being buffed by a rather significant margin. If we're going to be honest about this, and you said yourself things need to be kept in line, are we going to get a gutting of Concord response times to compensate? Because things are no longer in line. The attacking ships are already paper thin and do not benefit from extra hull HP. So what are you going to give them to get everything back in line? ASIDE I think this nerf/rebuff thing is overly complicated for it's own sake. We could have just had a nerf to DCU's, and left it at that. Having native hull resists feels absolutely wrong, especially when you consider that hull will now have native explosive resist that armor does not. I know the crew members can be squishy, but they're NOT squishy enough to absorb explosive rounds hurled at them by battleships. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Fraxxton Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 7	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:24:58 - [633] - Quote ISD Max Trix wrote: If you have issues with the way forums are being moderated please file a ticket and Internal Affairs will investigate. Which, given a flat earth scenario, leads directly to the question if pigs can actually fly, and if so, how will a passive DCU and modified hull resistances affect pig survivability? CCP Fozzie, would you care to comment?
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 150	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:46:23 - [634] - Quote Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times. The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. 8. Use of profanity is prohibited. The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter. 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. 13. Spamming is prohibited. Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to insert other game nameGÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason. 23. Post constructively. Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. 31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited. CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. Still removing post, thread put in active moderation status. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 164	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:54:08 - [635] - Quote that is their sandbox , its their decision. howewer majority of posts were right feedback about the damage control tiercide thing is the module they have got to rework should stay active module , but should be allowed to fit n freighters and jump freighters with simply reduced hull resists to 30% . officer/deadspace damage control YES but i would see the new damage control rework in this way tech 1 - 15% shield resistance 20% armor resistance and 25% hull resistance tech1 meta 4 should be 17% on shield resistances 23% on armor and 27% on hull resistances tech 2 should be 20% shield 25% armor 30% hull resistances faction should be somewhat 22% shield 27% armor and 32% hull deadspaces damage control depending on the type A type would apply 28% shield 37% armor 40% hull B type should keep around 26% shield 35% armor and 36% hull C type 26% shield 33% armor and 36% hull X type would apply 30% shield 40% armor and 50% hull officer damage controls should be also done by subtypes type 1 shield 24 armor 30 hull 34 type 2 shield 26 armor 33 hull 36 type 3 shield 28 armor 35 hull 40 type 4 shield 30 armor 40 hull 50 type 5 ~elite shield 35 armor 45 hull 55 the fitting cost should be tech 1 1 powergrid 24 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle tech1 meta4 powergrid 1 and 28 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle tech2 1 powergrid 32 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle faction 1 powergrid 30 cpu capacitor use 1gj per cycle deadspace should be 1 powergrid but from 28 cpu up to 36 capacitor use 4gj per cycle officer damage control should be 1 powergrid up to 40 cpu depending on type capacitor use 4gj per cycle elite damage control should be 5 powergrid 50 cpu capacitor use 10gj per cycle 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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:01:20 - [636] - 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.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 150	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:02:12 - [637] - Quote Thread Locked for 24 hours to get people time to review our rules here and for them to file their support tickets on forum moderation. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*
Lena Lazair Sefrim 557	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:38:28 - [638] - Quote Light Combat Drone wrote: Could it have something to do with making sure faction-quality items can't be easily monopolized by a single PC entity controling a NPC area of availability? Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's to allow different factions LP stores to have value, rather than forcing people to grind a particular faction rep for a faction DC. Obviously not all factions get every single module, but a range of factions per module spreads things out. The point is they can make ONE item with a unique but non-faction-specific name, then sell that single item in multiple faction LP stores. Now you have ONE item on the market to look at/compare against instead of 4 items with identical stats. EDIT: To clarify, since I know this is hard. The Syndicate, Shadow, and Sentient Damage Controls are all identical. Why not just make a single item called "Super Awesome Damage Control" and sell it from the Syndicate and Shadow LP stores as well as have it drop from drones?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7203	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:41:02 - [639] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Except the part where they now get 1/3 of one for free. And again, they're getting a buff designed the counter the nerfing of a module they could not equip in the first place. Again, I cite my hictor example. Why should ships that can't use hictor bubbles benefit from a bubble nerf? 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. Khan Wrenth wrote: In line, with what? A freighter does not compete with any ship except other freighters in terms of carrying capacity. HP becomes a factor only when attacked. If the freighter is a wartarget or in lower sec areas, the issue is moot anyway. He's gonna buy the farm. But the already enormous HP wall freighters have getting upped even more only serves to hinder suicide ganking in highsec. In line with other ships. All ships are getting the buff. Let's be real here, the only reason you want to neglect ships like freighters is because you don't want to see a ganking nerf, not because you think the benefit being put on a freighter is out of line in terms of other ships in the game. It's like if they decided to make all ships 10% faster, there would be no reason not to add that to a freighter too. Khan Wrenth wrote: Freighter health is being buffed by a rather significant margin. If we're going to be honest about this, and you said yourself things need to be kept in line, are we going to get a gutting of Concord response times to compensate? Because things are no longer in line. The attacking ships are already paper thin and do not benefit from extra hull HP. So what are you going to give them to get everything back in line? Why? they've already stated in the OP that they know it's a nerf, and that's OK. Ganking is too easy anwyay, so I have absolutely no problem with it being nerfed. I'd like to see more active mechanics in the future, and would at that point expect to see nerfs to passive defense, but I see absolutely no problem with the change affecting freighters as is. Khan Wrenth wrote: I think this nerf/rebuff thing is overly complicated for it's own sake. We could have just had a nerf to DCU's, and left it at that. The level of rage if that had happened would be insane, and I guarantee that if that were the case there would be an argument from the same people crying in here that freighters should be nerfed because they can't use a DC and thus nerfing the DC would be a buff to freighter relatively speaking. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:44:57 - [640] - 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.

Lena Lazair Sefrim 557	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:45:31 - [641] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Quoting a very old post from when the DCU got implemented, the original dev (i don't remember who) said they wanted the DCU to be an active module with a "long cycle" and very little cap requirement to avoid to encourage AFK play styles and actually reward the player from being there, turning it on every jump / undock, compared to the player autopiloting afk. Actually, the exact opposite. They wanted the DCU to be passive but didn't have the tech to make "only one per ship" passive modules at the time.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 29	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:59:53 - [642] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:03:03 - [643] - 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.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3085	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:03:18 - [644] - 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. On the contrary, they are a pretty good and representative sample. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
KickAss Tivianne Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity 76	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:09:50 - [645] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 924	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:11:47 - [646] - Quote The ships that can't use damage controls should get half the effect of this tank buff. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 30	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:12:45 - [647] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:14:33 - [648] - 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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 924	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:17:14 - [649] - 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. Where is your proof that they need a buff then. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2972	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:18:32 - [650] - Quote Freighters should have always been able to use a DCU, along with a whole bunch of other fittings. Being dramatically limited in fitting to 1 CPU 3 low slots is not interesting or engaging, it's boring and pretty much binary choice. This is however different to the argument of ganker vs gankee balance. Regarding EHP, no-one was ever ganking the max bulkhead freighters anyway (I'm sure you can post a single KM to say 'look people do' so lets take that argument as written and not be pedantic), so using a max bulkhead freighter to base your EHP changes off is deliberately misleading as to what the real effect of this change is.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 331	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:20:24 - [651] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Feel free to show me another data set gathered over a year and that covers over 2 million gate jumps. Go to zkill and filter freighter kills in hisec. Then manually remove all the non-ganks one. You'll find out an interesting trend, especially in the light of number of reduced number of active logged-in characters (Hint: the trends in terms of freighter ganking are not downward sloped). All of this is just the kills that are logged, there was a number of accounts which removed their apis from the killboad in order to avoid detection by gankerlookout so real ganking numbers are very likely higher. Naturally, I expect you to claim that these numbers mean nothing, and that's fine. Wouldn't expect nothing less form you.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 30	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:20:30 - [652] - Quote baltec1 wrote: There is zero evidence any change is needed to freighter EHP. Replace "There is" with "I have" and you have made a significant step away from the bad habit of presenting your personal views as facts. I am certain that CCP has treasure chests full of data that made the resistance buff seem like a reasonable idea.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3085	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:22:13 - [653] - Quote They didn't actually say there was a problem and no other data is forth coming. But it would be simply idiotic to discount the data from the industry leader concerning thousands of jobs over millions of jumps. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:22:57 - [654] - 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. Actually, there are plenty of online sample calculators that you can plug any confidence figures into you like as see for yourself whether 2.8 million jumps in highsec in a year is likely to be a representative sample or not. Here is an Australian Government one for example (just because I'm in AUS, but there are many others): http://www.nss.gov.au/nss/home.nsf/pages/Sample+size+calculator 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. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2972	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:28:08 - [655] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:28:34 - [656] - 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:30:09 - [657] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Which limit the size/value of the cargo dramatically, and therefore significantly skew the sample. How much? Of course, if you want to work at >1 Billion ISK collateral figures, then you can always use the Blue Frog statistics, which show even lower levels of gank risk. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Lena Lazair Sefrim 558	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:30:14 - [658] - Quote 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.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 30	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:31:18 - [659] - Quote 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. That would be the case if the samples were not taken from an organization that has rules regarding maximum cargo value and other strict procedures - very reasonable, as I mentioned earlier. I would like to hear from CCP Quant or colleagues on this matter. EDIT: Lena Lazair beat me to it.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17406	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:34:02 - [660] - 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 - [661] - 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.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 331	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:40:55 - [662] - Quote 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.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 560	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:41:43 - [663] - Quote 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 :)
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:42:02 - [664] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: You are abusing stats. Please stop. ... ignorant about basic statistical principles. Excuse me? This should be a fun discussion. Have at it. Not personal views. Put the basic theory out there to support that claim and of course, link that to what I have claimed (which is?). Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 331	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:45:42 - [665] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: You are abusing stats. Please stop. ... ignorant about basic statistical principles. Excuse me? This should be a fun discussion. Have at it. Not personal views. Put the basic theory out there to support that claim and of course, link that to what I have claimed (which is?). Representativeness of the sample does not stem from sample size. For starters.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17408	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:45:57 - [666] - 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.
Dom Arkaral Gate Is Red Complaints Department 59	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:46:11 - [667] - Quote this thread keeps on going in circles MAKE PROPOSITIONS FFS I'm out of this cancer thread Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker I have no Honer (truly) Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche! Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17408	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:46:59 - [668] - 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 - [669] - 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.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 560	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:50:10 - [670] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: It will always just come back to whether the data meets preconceived ideas, because the ability to objectively look at the issue is clouded by personal feelings about ganking that mean we all have a bias. That's why data is valuable, but also why data will always be dismissed if it doesn't help an individual persons argument. No, it really doesn't. You can carefully de-bias data in a relatively objective way regardless of your preconceived ideas. Statistics is a strong and complex mathematical discipline for a reason. Unfortunately it also involves objectively recognizing when you simply don't have the data to do what you are trying to do, which is the case here. Scipio Artelius wrote: Then add in the Blue Frog Freight statistics and the risk of being ganked that they achieve drops further. Sure, though no one has. Even then, it doesn't remove the bias. A careful examination of both Red and Blue Frog policies and behaviors in conjunction with a survey of general freighter hauling would be the bare minimum start to trying to figure out where the frog data fits into the big picture. There are lots of contracts even Blue won't fly. Also, I'll point out that frogs haven't released 2015 annual report data yet, AFAIK. This whole thing is based on data over a year old at this point, and 2015 was a pretty big year of change in the hi-sec freighter ganking world. Even if the frog data was perfectly representative and unbiased, it' still doesn't cover recent events.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 332	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:50:23 - [671] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1560	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:53:06 - [672] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17408	Posted - 2016.02.13 20:55:15 - [673] - 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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 925	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:00:19 - [674] - Quote I hope CCP realize that 33% resists mean effectively 50% more ehp. It's not a 33% buff it's 50% buff. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:01:40 - [675] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Representativeness of the sample does not stem from sample size. For starters. Yeah that's a good place to start. Representativeness of course stems from the qualities you want to measure (ie. It's representative if it accurately reflects the relevant qualities of the entire population). That's the primary consideration. Once that is known, the sample size you take from a population to measure that is absolutely critical to achieving a good analysis. There may be differences in what is considered an important quality and clearly the RFF (Blue FF to include collateral >1 Billion) is not a measure of risk achieved by the whole hauling population. It's representative of RFF (and Blue and Black if you include those figures) and a good measure of the overall safety that can be achieved by anyone. The claim in the thread was that 2.8 million jumps in highsec every year is not a representative sample, which is total rubbish. It is a perfectly good sample depending on what you are hoping to achieve from the data. So RFF for <1 Billion collateral in highsec. Add in Blue FF for > 1Billion collateral in highsec and the level of safety they achieve is as objective as it can get unless you think they publish incorrect data. Is that the same risk that all haulers achieve? Absolutely not, because other haulers don't necessarily manage risk as well as the RFF group. It is as good a representative data set of the level of risk that can be achieved (for a broad range of collateral amounts), no matter who is hauling. The data I've been collecting for the last couple of weeks will be ready to publish shortly and since that looks at the risk for the whole hauling community passing through Uedama and Niarja, hopefully it will add some additional data that can be analysed several different ways. It is also a large sample size (though not a 100% sample, such as RFF data). Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17409	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:06:21 - [676] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7205	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:08:03 - [677] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. It makes no sense to compensate them with 33% omni resists because CCP are nerfing a mod they cant even use. But if all other ships gain a 33% boost then yes, they lose out because relative to all otehr ships they are worse off. It makes perfect sense for a global ship chance to affect all ships, even if it makes gankers mad because it adds a small amount of additional effort for some ganks. At the end of the day if this was a playstyle you opposed being affected you'd be all for it. Also, like you've previously said, freighters got nerfed when they rebalanced them before, so they are long overdue for a buff. Daichi Yamato wrote: On the contrary, they are a pretty good and representative sample. Yep, about the same as using statistics of formula 1 drivers to determine how good members of the general population are at racing. Beyond that it's actually likely that by RFF going to extra measures to makes themselves less likely to be chosen as a target, other freighters have a higher chance of being ganked. If RFF were the only people flying freighters you would likely see an increase there too, because nothing they do makes them immune to ganks. At the end of the day it's impossible to be ungankable both before and after the change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 333	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:09:27 - [678] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: ... Again, and as you've admited yourself, RFF data is representative of RFF. That aside, and as I've already said, if webbing was to become the norm among freighters, suicide tackle would become too. Look at killboards and you'll be able to find expmples of it used today, and the increase in cost of achieving the intial tackle is really negligable in comparison to profit from ganks. The problem is bumping. Also, all of these posts are off topic and will likely get deleted anyway, so I'll stop participating in this discussion.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17409	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:10:19 - [679] - 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:12:43 - [680] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: What's wrong with just reducing the total hp from the freighter hull? For me, that would be an equally crazy outcome from a rebalance of Damage Controls. If it is straight up about balancing Damage Controls, then it shouldn't have any effect on Freighters at all. It's a totally irrelevant issue for that class of ship. So to nerf their HP to compensate for a buff to EHP seems just as strange as buffing their EHP to compensate for a DCU nerf to begin with. I personally wouldn't want to see Freighter statistics nerfed just because of a DCU rebalance. Quote: Unless ccp thinks they need a buff but for some reason thought it would be better not to just come out and day that. In the context of a DCU rebalance, this is the only thing that actually makes sense. CCP want to buff Freighters and this is the easy way to achieve it. It doesn't necessarily make sense (certainly not to everyone), but seems the obvious reason. Quote: .... 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 Ideally, I agree. Buff Freighters in their own thread and contain what is a very strange aspect of this change in its own place and let discussion about the other aspects, good and bad (eg. whether it's a larger buff for Gallente than oither races) be possible. At the moment, any other discussion is lost in the freighter aspect of this. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Lugh Crow-Slave 1560	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:13:03 - [681] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Not to mention freighters could never fit dcu But I can see why not giving them 33%resists could be confusing to new players joining a year or so from now so reducing base hull hp would be better Citadel worm hole tax
Lena Lazair Sefrim 560	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:15:04 - [682] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: There may be differences in what is considered an important quality and clearly the RFF (Blue FF to include collateral >1 Billion) is not a measure of risk achieved by the whole hauling population. It's representative of RFF (and Blue and Black if you include those figures) and a good measure of the overall safety that can be achieved by anyone. Again you are leaving out the critical assumption here; really the single biggest point of contention on this argument. It is a measure of overall safety that can be achieved by anyone provided the only high-sec contracts that ever need to be flown are those that fit under RFF policies. Is limiting all high-sec freight to the equivalent RFF policies to ensure that level of safety a fair and balanced set of mechanics? Now THAT is an interesting argument, but not one I personally care all that much about. This also, of course, ignores completely the knock-on effects of adapting ganker playstyle if this limitation were to be somehow hard-enforced. We know gankers will hit high-sec haulers that are empty or not profitable; if ALL high-sec freight traffic followed RFF policies, would it remain as safe as the RFF subset within the current higher-risk traffic today? Or would the risk just normalize across the general population again and the low-risk players like RFF see an uptick in ganks? Fascinating stuff there really, but mostly academic from my perspective. I'm still fundamentally far more annoyed by the uselessness of T1/M0 items across the board of all tiericide
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3086	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:16:30 - [683] - Quote Except red frog pilots are outsourced. They are freighter pilots like you and me. Not trained professionals lol. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:16:32 - [684] - Quote 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 not just unique to RFF. Anyone can achieve the same outcome as them, so it is representative beyond RFF, to anyone that manages risk effectively and every single one of us is able to do that. That can be ignored, but it is still true. The additional data that comes out shortly (which anyone will be able to verify independently by watching all the video back again), will be representative of the whole population. It's analysis from different sides should be fun to follow. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:18:13 - [685] - 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:24:14 - [686] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Again you are leaving out the critical assumption here; really the single biggest point of contention on this argument. It is a measure of overall safety that can be achieved by anyone provided the only high-sec contracts that ever need to be flown are those that fit under RFF policies. I haven't left out anything at all. My statements have been consistent that the RFF data is representative of the level of risk that can be achieved by anyone. No assumptions have been omitted, but the willingness of others to completely dismiss that conclusion, while claiming at the same time that it is so easy to just drop into Udeama and see the problem, offering no evidence themselves, prompted me to go collect data myself because this endless whining is pointless. That data will be published shortly and is representative of the whole population passing through Uedama and Niarja (which conservatively makes the data as biased as possible towards the assumption that bumping and ganking are problems that require mechanics changes). Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Lena Lazair Sefrim 560	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:24:23 - [687] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:27:18 - [688] - 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 - [689] - Quote As a side note, Could anyone give me a valid reason to buff the Avatar with 33% more structure resists?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7205	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:30:10 - [690] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP are not increasing firepower so no, they don't lose out at all. Of course they do, if all other ships were made faster except one, that ship would be losing out. Additionally, ganking ships will also be buffed, so they will have more time if being fired on by players, making freighter escorts less effective. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Not to mention freighters could never fit dcu So what if they couldn't fit a DCU? ALL ships are being buffed. The ships that did use a DCU will now gain 33% resists and can either choose to fit a new DCU, making them slightly stronger than with the old DCUs, or they can fit a completely different module, keeping the new resists and making them even better than before in another area. Ships that can't fit DCUs are getting less of a buff as they don't get the extra free lowslot. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so reducing base hull hp would be better Personally I think putting the change though and people just adapting to the increase with a bit of effort would be better. When did EVE turn from "HTFU" to "Oh no, that will mean my activity is marginally harder than it used to be so don't do it"? The FAX skills just got scrapped because people can't deal with having new skills for new ships too. At some point people need to just accept that change is inevitable and adapt. baltec1 wrote: Even if they were trained professionals, they are using the exact same skills, tools and mechanics we all have access to. Yes, but the statistics derived from trained professionals would be different from the statistics for the general population. You cherry picked your stats because they say what you want them to say, which is why they are irrelevant. If I start up a group and we all fly friehgters like idiots getting killed all the time you'd say "yeah but they weren't doing it right". Your stats are effectively the same but the other way. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3086	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:31:50 - [691] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter. Its actually the difference between: - Ganking is not a problem. If people weren't dumb and/or lazy, they'd have a 99.9% success rate. - Ganking is a problem. Even when making effort to reduce their risk, they still lose a freighter in 1/1000 times. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Lena Lazair Sefrim 560	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:31:59 - [692] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Got any evidence this is going to happen? Doesn't matter. All that matters is that IN THE CURRENT ECOSYSTEM, CCP has a # for the risk of high-sec freighter ganking that we mere mortals have a pretty hard time approximating ourselves with the data on hand. Given that #, CCP is saying a 50% buff to freighters is reasonable. Whatever that number is, it's NOT the RFF #. Arguing that, if all high-sec hauling were replaced solely by RFF hauling, the number RFF sees now would become the new global #, is absurd on the face of it. No sufficiently complex and dynamic system behaves in such a simple manner. Now, whether the # CCP has actually warrants a 50% buff or not is a totally different matter, one that is really hard to argue because we don't have the # CCP has. But arguing over the RFF number as though it could be scaled up is totally pointless as well, because it can't.
ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1005	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:34:30 - [693] - Quote This is a warning to the people currently participating in the discussion. Since the thread has been unlocked, the past 3 to 4 pages have been solely a discussion on the merit or lack thereof of a sample of data from Red Frog. This is not the appropriate place to discuss sample sizes and representative samples of the population. Please leave the dead horse alone and move on to giving constructive feedback on damage control tiericide, or I will have to remove the last few pages worth of discussion. ISD Fractal Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:36:08 - [694] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: EDIT: You are basically zooming in on one portion of a large system, then saying "if we scaled this up and replaced the entire system with just this, it would continue to be accurate". That's an obviously absurd assumption, I'm not even sure why I'd need to point it out. No I'm not. That is a completely wrong interpretation of what I have said. I have made no claims about ways gankers would modify their behaviour if all haulers followed RFF (and throw in Blue FF since 1 Billion collateral across the board is limited), then . My statements are purely on the data and current context. Fullstop. Any extrapolation of what I have said to assume that means all hauling should shift to RFF policies is your own addition. That is not what I mean at all. There is no way currently to know the risk that would result if that occurred since their is 0 data to analyse. My only statement is the that level of risk achieved by RFF (and Blue FF) is achievable by any of us. No extra context implied other than the risk that can be achieved currently and that is true whether you want to diminish the relevance of that or not. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Anthar Thebess 1460	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:41:24 - [695] - Quote 33% passive structure buff to battleships is to big, the same apply to all ships above. Don't give passive resist to structure, ships need to die. Maybe give freighters dedicated damage control that will give 33% structure resists, that will require no CPU. We also need visible information that DCU is on specific ship without ship scanner. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:41:28 - [696] - Quote Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists.
Anthar Thebess 1460	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:45:55 - [697] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists. What justify 33% structure resistance on dread, carrier or any other capital. Including freighters. I will no longer mount a damage control on non hull tanked capital , but additional resist. WHY WE DON"T HAVE SANSHA, ANGEL, GURISTAS LP store damage control? Angel giving bigger resists to explosive Sansha to EM Guristas to Kinetic. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:47:14 - [698] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:52:24 - [699] - 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.
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.02.13 21:59:52 - [700] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Judging by other Avatar kills it seems to be an exception for the most part, it also needs to be taken into account that Titans possibly die during refitting in the middle of the fight, in a tanking fit there is (as far as I know and correct me if I'm wrong) no reason not to have a DC fitted. Using the logic that they SHOULD have one fitted in a tank fit it won't make a difference. In a case a travel fit is caught the lack of a DC being fitted results in an extra 250k EHP as far as I see (On an Avatar), which will in very few occasions make a difference considering the amount of damage being thrown around when a Titan is being fried. If I messed up on the EHP calculation my bad and it's open to correction. EDIT: The extra EHP is for hull only after the tiericide without a DC fitted.

Lena Lazair Sefrim 561	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:00:55 - [701] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Very well lets move on then. What justification is there for titans to be getting a 33% buff to base structure resists. The point is to change things so that using a DCU is a choice, not a requirement. The same way that right now using armor plates or hardeners vs damage mods or whatever is an actual choice that enables a variety of fitting options, vs. the pretty-much no-brainer/every-fit reality of the DCU. There are only a couple of ways to achieve this. A flat nerf to the DCU would work, either in the form of reduced effectiveness or much increased fitting, but would upset the meta pretty heavily. An individual nerf/buff to the baseline resists of every single hull in EVE based on the pre-dominance of DCU usage in their meta/common fits would work, but would be incredibly intensive and also very likely to upset the meta in hugely unpredictable ways. Lastly, a flat nerf to the DCU with a corresponding buff to the baseline HP across the board, which is what they are doing. This isn't without balance impact, but the number of ships/fits NOT commonly using DCU to see how unbalanced this makes them is a lot more manageable to look at, impact-wise, since it's a pretty small # in comparison. CCP has pointed out some of the very specific edge-cases here where DCU's were not previously being used commonly, mentioned that they are aware of these, and mentioned that they are OK with the balance change implied by this. So, to answer your question, the justification for titans getting a 33% baseline increase is so that DCU's are no longer a mandatory part of almost every single fit with as little impact to the meta as possible. 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...
Anthar Thebess 1460	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:01:18 - [702] - Quote People refit to damage control , but don't have fitted one by default. Refitting is going away, and 33% structure resist buff invalidates need of damage control , as it can be replaced by something more useful. DCU is requirement when you assume that structure will save your life. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Lena Lazair Sefrim 564	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:15:24 - [703] - Quote 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.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 564	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:25:18 - [704] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. It's definitely not true for the set of Avatars likely to show up on zkillboard. Out of 25 Avatars killed going back thru 2015, 20 had DCU's. Of the 5 without, one wasn't fit at all, and two were full cap recharger/flux coil travel fits. So yeah, I dunno. Your claim could be absolutely true, I don't do cap combat. Perhaps, like pirates and global warming, DCU's are actually the leading cause of Avatars showing up on zKillboard? :)
KickAss Tivianne Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity 76	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:26:45 - [705] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Arguing that if everyone flew like RFF then everyone would enjoy the CURRENT RFF risk % is a non-starter. Its actually the difference between: - Ganking is not a problem. If people weren't dumb and/or lazy, they'd have a 99.9% success rate. - Ganking is a problem. Even when making effort to reduce their risk, they still lose a freighter in 1/1000 times. edit-Thats why i at least am focussing on it. Its not like the rules red frog use are hard for the greater population to follow. The additional buff will make gankers select targets more selectively. Ganking empty freighters won't be done because "we are bored and want to blow something up for the LOLs". It will take more ships or more expensive ships to gank it. SO the risk for minimal reward is reached. A silly empty autopilot freighter may not be targeted. gankers will wait for more selective targets. That way the total number of ganks go down. But, the value of each gank goes up. Kinda the Eve way right?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:27:00 - [706] - 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 - [707] - 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
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2973	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:31:59 - [708] - Quote 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.
Lena Lazair Sefrim 564	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:35:42 - [709] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 Sure but when it comes to gameplay mechanics, I think it's reasonable to balance around people making rational choices. If all rational people would have fit a DCU there, then it's not really a choice, and if it's not a choice, it's not compelling gameplay. Other than freighters, the only other ships I can think of that might routinely not fit DCU would be various kite setups, and even then lots of folks choose to cram a DCU in regardless. I definitely think this is going to be an overall buff to the kitey meta, which I'm not necessarily thrilled about.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17410	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:39:07 - [710] - 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.

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 44475	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:50:45 - [711] - Quote One question I have been trying to answer for myself is: What breaks if you balance the DCU as outlined in the OP, but don't buff every ship with a 33% hull resist? Sentry guns is one possibility, since you would be reducing the overall tank of most ships, making it easier for sentry guns to burn through ships that have a DCU fit. Another possibility is that ships fit with a DCU lose tank compared to now, whereas ships that don't fit a DCU currently don't lost tank, which potentially shortens some fights. The flip side is that with the current buff, even ships that don't fit a DCU now also get buffed, so they still become comparatively stronger, so it seems not much really changes relatively no matter which way the change goes. As with the previous one, overall tank in the game would be reduced for many ships, but overall DPS in the game will remain the same, potentially shortening fights. What else potentially breaks if no one gets the 33% hull resist buff? Why not just balance DCUs and let the meta adjust to where it adjusts to and let fights be shorter and potentially with more destruction? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2973	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:52:10 - [712] - Quote 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.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2909	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:26:17 - [713] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. It is also in no way too hard currently, that's why gankers don't bat an eye when they elect to drop a freighter, it's easy prey. It'll take large changes to EHP to offset that. I think freighters should have a hull HP nerf to go along with their hull resist buff, but without that they will still be entirely gankable. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Lugh Crow-Slave 1560	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:26:23 - [714] - 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. Wait when did hull become your ships systems is just the superstructure isn't it? Citadel worm hole tax
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 45	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:32:49 - [715] - Quote 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 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. Equally can anyone post an argument that titans need all of that extra EHP this change would give? The whole 33% change just doesn't work very well in a lot of situations and with a lot of ships and their fits. If you look back a few pages I provide a good example of why this line of reasoning is false for many pvp situations. The bottom line is that the 33% structure resist gives players a fitting choice now where the DC was previously mandatory. The hecate example you provided is an excellent case, as dropping the DC for an extra magstab currently sacrifices half of it's buffer tank and about 15% of it's AAR tank for about 10% more DPS. With the 33% structure change, it loses about a third of that buffer tank in exchange for the DPS, which is a much more equitable trade. This change makes the exchange worth consideration, the benefits and drawbacks are well balanced and players will have new choices. You can certainly think of it as a blanked buff, but in many cases, it's buffing fits that right now aren't viable at all into viability, especially brawling fits that don't fit nanos. As for fits that currently don't use a DC, most of them are nano fits, which have, as CCP has mentioned, a self controlling feature imposed already, as nanos reduce structure significantly. Using the orthrus as an example, a double nano fit will still have a third more buffer in armor HP than structure after the change. Also, titans and supers are slated for an EHP reduction when they're rebalanced, and I'm sure that this change has been factored into their calculations. Moreover, the fitting example above still applies to titans. For most fits, dropping the DC is almost always going to result in an EHP loss because of stacking penalties (especially for armor fits,) even with the 33% buff to structure resists. I don't particularly care about the war between gankers and anti-gankers, but I share your concern over ratting fits gaining EHP because of this change. Despite that, you have repeatedly mischaracterized the scope of their EHP increase, though. It's a 33% buff to structure resistances, not 33% more tank. A few more vollies from a blopsing stealth bomber is a price I'm willing to pay for the kinds of new fits that become available in FW, solo, small gang, and even some kinds of blobby pvp. Edit: Clarity and a few spelling mistakes.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1102	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:24:31 - [716] - Quote ISD Max Trix wrote: If you have issues with the way forums are being moderated please file a ticket and Internal Affairs will investigate. Will do, bub.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3089	Posted - 2016.02.14 03:16:29 - [717] - Quote KickAss Tivianne wrote: The additional buff will make gankers select targets more selectively. Ganking empty freighters won't be done because "we are bored and want to blow something up for the LOLs". It will take more ships or more expensive ships to gank it. SO the risk for minimal reward is reached. A silly empty autopilot freighter may not be targeted. gankers will wait for more selective targets. That way the total number of ganks go down. But, the value of each gank goes up. Kinda the Eve way right? Not just silly empty autopilot freighters, but all freighters will be targeted less, full afk freighters included. Freighter pilots who evaded ganking through webs, alternate routes, scouting etc have little or nothing to gain from freighters becoming tougher because they were rarely targeted in the first place (i have 3 freighter pilots and a bowhead and after playing the game for over half a decade, no one has taken so much as a pot shot at them). The main beneficiaries of the change are the lazy and dumb, and that will push down the prices that would normally be enjoyed by smarter haulers who used the available tools. How on earth you could be for that kind of change at this stage i just don't know. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Zappity Black Aces I N F A M O U S 2689	Posted - 2016.02.14 03:21:16 - [718] - Quote CCP Falcon wrote: Just got this thread pointed out to me, thought I'd chime in. It's pretty simple really, if you want to provide concise and solid feedback on EVE-O, then do so in a manner that's constructive and isn't attacking other people or other play styles. The rules are there for a reason, and if you don't like them, there are plenty of other EVE related places to post that have different rule sets. Like this glorious subreddit for instance. I've spent some time reviewing ISD actions in the thread, and there were two camps at war here. One half is those who most people will call "gankers" who're salty about the resistance changes that are going to make their lives more difficult and mean they're going to have to put more effort into highsec ganking and put more cost on the line, and the other side is those who're risk adverse and who're basically saying "leellllllll sucks 2 b u gankers!" Neither of these groups have had anything constructive to say, and haven't added anything of value to the thread, so they've been moderated out to prevent people who actually have valid feedback about the changes from being drowned out. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/45lsw6/continued_censorship_in_the_damage_control/ Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2016.02.14 03:26:42 - [719] - Quote I normally stay away from these forums because of the signal-to-noise ratio, but there's some interesting discussion here. I wont really contribute much, but I'll say a few things. First, a lot of people have some misconceptions about ganking. One person compared it to ratting. Other people talk about it like its free money. The truth is there is so much more happening behind the scenes that occurs to make everything possible. Recruitment, Authorization, Supply and Procurement, Logistics (Ever tried moving a few thousand catalysts, 200 at a time?), Fitting ships on a weekly if not daily basis, Selling loot and investment. Scouting and Recon. Training. Veteran bumpers spend days of playtime bumping to get to their skill level. Freighter FCs spend months leading smaller fleets before they step up. And, of course, FCing. Ganking will continue to happen, but the work required to make ganking happen has increased many-fold compared to additional gank costs and throwing more talos or catalysts at a freighter. The increase in cost is negligible; we don't make our money from killing 1b-3b freighters, we make it for killing 10b-20b freighters. All this really does is make our lives harder, not reduce the profitability of ganking. And as so many people pointed out, often profitability doesn't really enter the equation. So I think that's the problem I have with this change. This change doesn't make for more interesting gameplay; it's N+1 gameplay. The only thing that's getting harder is everything but ganking. And I think this is a symptom of a larger problem with highsec and gank-oriented gameplay. It's very asymmetric. Gankers go after the whale; anti-gankers go after the gankers. The gankers can try to respond, but under very different engagement rules. The whale tries to get away any way it can (and it often does). All this change does is say, "Bring more gankers." Don't gank smarter, don't gank cleverer, just gank harder. I think a few people (Hi Rham) keep decrying bumping. But I think CCP has shown they're interested in keeping bumping, as it's an interesting game mechanic in every area of gameplay. As I said above, people don't realize how long bumpers train and practice. We don't let inexperienced bumpers bump for fleets, and experienced, seasoned bumpers are hard to come by. I think everyone hears about the dead freighters, but not the ones that got away through a myriad of ways, not even including bumper error. But even without bumping, on-gate suicide point freighter ganks would still be possible (see Russian ganking). But that's far less interesting gameplay for all sides involved, with virtually no counter on the freighter's part in exchange for a significantly more tedious, but easier, ganker play. I am not unilaterally opposed to changes to ganking and highsec mechanics that make for more interesting gameplay, particularly with respect to freighters. However, if the motivation for this change is to curb freighter ganking, it's boring and uninspired and leads to no actually gameplay change. And I think whatever uptick in ganking may exist is due not to the difficulty of freighter ganking, but to the fact that there are several insanely dedicated individuals that make this all possible.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 783	Posted - 2016.02.14 03:38:53 - [720] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Not just silly empty autopilot freighters, but all freighters will be targeted less, full afk freighters included. Freighter pilots who evaded ganking through webs, alternate routes, scouting etc have little or nothing to gain from freighters becoming tougher because they were rarely targeted in the first place... This exactly. There was a misconception earlier about certain freighter company having lower risk. I don't want to open that discussion again, however it is worth correcting that misconception as it goes right to the heart of this issue for me as a hauler. That freighter company limits risk to the extent that the structure of the business allows hauling to continue even under random and perma-wardecs. Alts are placed in the Corp to accept contracts and once accepted, the packages are handed off to, generally NPC Corp hauling alts (but not always NPC Corp). Once that hand-off occurs, the safety of the package is 100% based on the way the individual pilot manages risk. It's not like a 70K m^3 package accepted on behalf of them is transported on its own in an almost empty freighter. Often, other contracts will be accepted from the Hauling Channel, or mailing list, or even the contracts system; and several packages are moved together in the one shipment. The final risk that those packages will be lost has very little to do with the Freight Corp, and everything to do with how I (and others) move from point A to point B. The same hazards are present, no matter who the package originates through. The final risk, comes down to individual action and behaviours and that's no different whether it's from that Corp, Push-X, a contract off the hauling channel, etc. It's all the same. And that's why this change as currently proposed hurts good hauling pilots, because it rewards the lazy. More AFK autopiloted packages will reach their destination as a result of this change; and that means there is less advantage to those that are good at what they do, because the mechanics will make poor pilots look better, while providing no practical benefit to good pilots. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17417	Posted - 2016.02.14 04:48:13 - [721] - 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16254	Posted - 2016.02.14 04:58:36 - [722] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. We already have tank modules for each defensive stat. Just delete the Damage Control concept entirely, and commensurately buff any ship that could use them, nothing else. Then add a hull resist module, just for hull resists. Simple, clean, fixes the issue. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2193	Posted - 2016.02.14 08:20:28 - [723] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. We already have tank modules for each defensive stat. Just delete the Damage Control concept entirely, and commensurately buff any ship that could use them, nothing else. Then add a hull resist module, just for hull resists. Simple, clean, fixes the issue. I like that idea. The main flaw of the current proposal I see now is (after checking my fits), that it makes the DCU only a little less mandatory but not really because its shield and armor bonus remains the same. Hence this is a nerf to shield and armor fits (due to much less choice of affordable fittings) and a boost to hull tank only. Actually I have fits using all of the low meta modules purely for fitting reasons. This change again reduces the number of cost effective fits. CCP, this game needs more fitting options not less, or we end up in even more situations where only one or few fits actually work and are affordable. I'm my own NPC alt.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2217	Posted - 2016.02.14 09:31:14 - [724] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. It is also in no way too hard currently, that's why gankers don't bat an eye when they elect to drop a freighter, it's easy prey. It'll take large changes to EHP to offset that. I think freighters should have a hull HP nerf to go along with their hull resist buff, but without that they will still be entirely gankable. If it is easy pray then why aren't they dying left and right? CODE, Goonswarm and occationally some other big alliances are already the only people who can do such a gank. There was a time when people solo ganked freighters which was effectively destroyed with the last buff. So all they are doing with another buff to the EHP is to make that pray even more exclusive to big alliances with a lot of people. The ONLY thing this does is to limit a playstile so you have to bring more people. I know, some of you think 'lulz, cry more ganker, you are the bad person here anyway so you deserve it' and I am sure this is also the way some devs are thinking. But being a criminal and ganking is an important part of the game. It is a valid game style and it is a lot of fun. So for me the essence of this is that CCP is buffing players wich play the boring hauling and mining game and are often not even at their keayboard. At the same time they nerf a playstile which is a lot of fun and make it once again less accessible. This does not end with Freighters. For example, it will no longer be possible to solo gank an untanked Retriever with a t2 catalyst in 0.7 and probably even 0.6. Now you have to bring a second ganker along. The amount of ships you could kill was already very small with only one gank char and it will be a lot smaller after this change. Obviously we will adapt, but there is only one way this will happen: you get an additional gank char which will make the gank probably even cheaper since you can now use t1 fits and do more damage than one t2. Do you really want to force all gankers into multiboxing? This may have some unintended consequences for the Freighter as well. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2016.02.14 10:19:18 - [725] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: If it is easy pray then why aren't they dying left and right? CODE, Goonswarm and occationally some other big alliances are already the only people who can do such a gank. There was a time when people solo ganked freighters which was effectively destroyed with the last buff. (EDIT: just want to add that ganking empty Freighters is a side effect of the large fleet you have to bring. If you want to keep those people in the fleet and entertain them, after all this is a game, you have to hit something and not just letting them sit arround. There is nothing more boring than gank fleets who only go after valuable targets.) So all they are doing with another buff to the EHP is to make that pray even more exclusive to big alliances with a lot of people. The ONLY thing this does is to limit a playstile so you have to bring more people. So for me the essence of this is that CCP is buffing players wich play the boring hauling and mining game and are often not even at their keayboard. At the same time they nerf a playstile which is a lot of fun and make it once again less accessible. This does not end with Freighters. For example, it will no longer be possible to solo gank an untanked Retriever with a t2 catalyst in 0.7 and probably even 0.6. Now you have to bring a second ganker along. The amount of ships you could kill was already very small with only one gank char and it will be a lot smaller after this change. In regards to these above mentioned points; I snipped some irrelevant ones out. Freighters, when time is right, are dying left and right (limited to the Niarja and Uedama pipe since that's easy pickings and doesn't require relocating), it can be seen that during a time of activity (prime time for certain corps) there is a relatively high amount of them; https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/. Secondly, given EVE is a sandbox you don't get to decide what's boring and what is not boring in EVE, behave yourself. As to the point made about being able to solo gank a miner: It's been mentioned that freighter pilots should sort their stuff out and get anti-ganking alts, anti-bumping alts and even reserve webbing alts for when their initial webbing alts get popped before they warp off. So I don't see the problem with you having to bring one extra person if all the gankers in this thread suggest freighter pilots to do the same. Concerning the DC changes, on second thought making it a passive module might be a bit over the top given the immense benefits it gives in regards to EHP and the way the DC module works with stacking penalties. I believe this should still be affected by neuts and the like to somewhat make the DC module a bit less attractive then this tiericide is already doing. This especially applies to larger ships such as battleships which can allocate more slots to tank (read: when stacking penalties get higher), this is where fitting a to be passive DC will strongly outperform adding an extra EANM or Adaptive Inv, with the Adaptive Inv even being an active module.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2207	Posted - 2016.02.14 10:20:00 - [726] - Quote KickAss Tivianne wrote: The additional buff will make gankers select targets more selectively. Ganking empty freighters won't be done because "we are bored and want to blow something up for the LOLs". It will take more ships or more expensive ships to gank it. SO the risk for minimal reward is reached. A silly empty autopilot freighter may not be targeted. gankers will wait for more selective targets. That way the total number of ganks go down. But, the value of each gank goes up. Kinda the Eve way right? And you think this is good? You are right, haulers will adapt and start carrying more value because it is safer. The big groups, like Goonswarm, and to a lesser extent CODE, will not be affected as they have the numbers to absorb the increased cost and should be collecting more loot. In the end they will keep on ganking as before, and CODE. will keep on exploding empty freighters just to make a point, subsidized if necessary by their ever-growing SRP. But who this will hurt any small groups looking to get into the game, although I guess you could argue the bar was already too high for anyone to set up a new ganking operation (which is supported by the fact we haven't seen one appear in years). When you are talking about a 15-20 people minimum to get started, it was already a massive bar to entry which has just been increased another 20+% people. I guess to many players and devs this is just fine, but it is a little strange to me to draw people to your game the ability to be a criminal, spend significant effort to code in a system for them to operate, but then make it near impossible for anyone with less than a 20-to-1 player advantage to be a highwayman in this game. It would be simpler, just to turn off the ability to shoot than to keep ratcheting up the difficulty to the point only one or two groups have the numbers to brute force being a criminal. But if you hate ganking, then this doesn't matter to you. What should though is the effect this will have on haulers. Red Frog (and their competitors) is going to have to eventually lower their prices or raise their ISK amount carried (which will decrease the number of contracts they get) to pass on this extra safety to their customers. That means less profit for them, and more contracts lost to the increase in AFK hauling. There will also be a decrease in sales of freighters hurting industrialists, but since ganking is already at minuscule levels, you could argue that that small decrease from near zero already won't be noticed by the economy. So this "one more nerf" will make bad hauling safer hurting professional haulers, while do nothing to large ganking groups other than give them more profitable targets. More haulers, particularly AFK/bad/lazy haulers should be vulnerable (like the entosis changes in sov nullsec which made sovholders vulnerable to small groups) if you want to promote hauling as a profession and make it have meaning. If anyone can load up a freighter and press "Autopilot" why would anyone ever outsource hauling in highsec? This is a hamfisted change that hurts highsec as a whole more than it helps. But gankers will adapt and ships will keep exploding, and probably be rewarded with more tears and loot from players who think they are safe and haul for months AFK with no problem until they one day put a little too much in their freighter and lose a half-a-year's worth of work in a few minutes. That seems like poor game design to me, even if the lower hauling rates this change will produce are going to benefit me and my industrial/trading operations directly. I already only pay a few hundred thousand per jump to move stuff from Jita to the other trade hubs. I wonder how low prices will go?
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 77	Posted - 2016.02.14 11:45:49 - [727] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: We already have tank modules for each defensive stat. Just delete the Damage Control concept entirely, and commensurately buff any ship that could use them, nothing else. Then add a hull resist module, just for hull resists. Simple, clean, fixes the issue. I really like this. Give every ship 30% structure base. Make the T2 damage control 50% structure resist only. Bringing hull tankers up to 65% resist total instead of 60% to compensate for lost armor and shield ehp. Passive module. Be done with it.
Fraxxton Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 7	Posted - 2016.02.14 12:11:46 - [728] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: So for me the essence of this is that CCP is buffing players wich play the boring hauling and mining game and are often not even at their keayboard. At the same time they nerf a playstile which is a lot of fun and make it once again less accessible. Obviously "boring" is your very personal label. Please refrain from judging other peoples' playstyle while at the same time knowing full well that ganking needs haulers, but not vice versa. As for the EHP/resistance buff, I suggest to go ahead with it as planned, and revisit the issue every three months or so when enough data has accumulated to measure the continued effect. When it comes to passive Damage Control I am still ambivalent. For ship hulls with enough lowslots, fitting a passive DCU might become a reflex action.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7206	Posted - 2016.02.14 12:14:30 - [729] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: First, a lot of people have some misconceptions about ganking. One person compared it to ratting. Other people talk about it like its free money. The truth is there is so much more happening behind the scenes that occurs to make everything possible. Recruitment, Authorization, Supply and Procurement, Logistics (Ever tried moving a few thousand catalysts, 200 at a time?), Fitting ships on a weekly if not daily basis, Selling loot and investment. Scouting and Recon. Training. Veteran bumpers spend days of playtime bumping to get to their skill level. Freighter FCs spend months leading smaller fleets before they step up. And, of course, FCing. But a guy hauling, he just jumped in a freighter and started flying williy nilly across the universe amirite? Oh wait, that's right, most of the time there's a lot of work that goes in to producing all the stuff that they are hauling the the first place. All playstyles will have stuff that happens behind the scene. BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: So I think that's the problem I have with this change. This change doesn't make for more interesting gameplay; it's N+1 gameplay. Indeed it is, but who's fault is that? Passive defense could be nuked on haulers if there were better active mechanics for people to fight off gankers with, if anti-ganking were a feasible playstyle and rewarded enough to make it worth people's while, but every suggestion of such a thing is met with floods of gankers attacking it because they don't want to have to compete with a group of players on a level playing field. So with that in mind, the only changes that are likely to happen are buffs to resilience for the individual gank victims. BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: I think a few people (Hi Rham) keep decrying bumping. But I think CCP has shown they're interested in keeping bumping, as it's an interesting game mechanic in every area of gameplay. As I said above, people don't realize how long bumpers train and practice. Keeping bumping is fair enough, although it does get to a point where someone has been bumped for several hours with no attempt having been made to gank them that it should be stopped. Something like, each tim someone is bumped they get marginally faster at aligning until they've warped so once a freighter has been bumped 1000 times they warp and the bumper has to go and re-bump them on a new grid. You talk about N+1 not being entertaining, try losing the ability to play for several hours while someone crashes into your ship. BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: I am not unilaterally opposed to changes to ganking and highsec mechanics that make for more interesting gameplay, particularly with respect to freighters. You may not be, most other gankers are. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2016.02.14 12:33:40 - [730] - Quote Just a thought: Why are you giving 33% base hull resist to ship that do not have the kind of resistance even in the armor? Gallentian, Minmater and Caldari ship profile have 10% on explosive damage, while Amarrians 20% and beside Gallentian ships every other race have 25 on kinetic. Excluding freighter and other ship that are already better at hull tanking like the orca, all combat ships i've seen have almost more structure than armor, or the same. With this change you are making a lot of ships better at hull tanking over the intended armor one. My proposal is: Why don't you give a more modest base line buff to hull, around 15%, buff the worst (or two worst) armor resist by 5% and have the damage control give +52.5% hull resistance 15% base + 52.5% bring the hull at around 59,625% omni and +5% base to all ships to worst (or two worst) armor resists will make them always better at taking any kind of damage in the armor over than the hull even when they don't fit a DCU. I think all this issue started for those ships that cannot fit a DCU, this proposal should somehow lessen the issue I guess. Also all the ganks are done with catalysts / talos, which are thermic / kinetic damage dealing ships, so even buffing the two worst resists by 5% to thermic and explosive their life wont change much.

ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 587	Posted - 2016.02.14 13:16:26 - [731] - Quote baltec1 wrote: and causes a huge number of problems. It does? I honestly cant think of a single one. oh and in regards to the whole red frog thing, you mention the statisitcs on how few ships they have lost in regards to how many jumps they do, yet you do seem to forget that most freighter ganks takes place in just a couple of systems, one of which you have to go through to get from one trade hub to another (unless of course you wanna go through low sec ). Hence your way of using statistics is all wrong in this matter. Would you feel better if we made all of high sec 1.0 sec and then removed the hull res bonus on freighters? QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 587	Posted - 2016.02.14 13:21:04 - [732] - Quote 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 QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3092	Posted - 2016.02.14 13:34:26 - [733] - Quote @crackforbreakfast The freighter losses in those systems is stupidly low compared to how many freighters actually pass through those systems. Even afk freighters have a good chance of passing through the system safely. @armyofme No, you dont have to pass through them. You can trade at any station. You choose to take on the risk because you want the reward of trading at a particular hub. You dont actually have a right to get to and from jita. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 587	Posted - 2016.02.14 13:41:33 - [734] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Do you really want to force all gankers into multiboxing? . Causing more gankers to have multiple accounts gives CCP more money, which is a good thing isnt it? QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Lugh Crow-Slave 1561	Posted - 2016.02.14 13:57:20 - [735] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Do you really want to force all gankers into multiboxing? . Causing more gankers to have multiple accounts gives CCP more money, which is a good thing isnt it? Lol seems like every profession in eve requires multiboxing. I mean you could use friends but they are not nearly as reliable and tend to want a cut for there work Citadel worm hole tax
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 379	Posted - 2016.02.14 14:57:13 - [736] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Do you really want to force all gankers into multiboxing? . Causing more gankers to have multiple accounts gives CCP more money, which is a good thing isnt it? Lol seems like every profession in eve requires multiboxing. I mean you could use friends but they are not nearly as reliable and tend to want a cut for there work For freighter ganking you need to multibox and have friends who also multibox.
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 588	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:19:42 - [737] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Do you really want to force all gankers into multiboxing? . Causing more gankers to have multiple accounts gives CCP more money, which is a good thing isnt it? Lol seems like every profession in eve requires multiboxing. I mean you could use friends but they are not nearly as reliable and tend to want a cut for there work For freighter ganking you need to multibox and have friends who also multibox. Or as the gankers keep saying, just bring more ppl. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16255	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:23:00 - [738] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Or as the gankers keep saying, just bring more ppl. Rather a difference between "bring one guy with webs and you're perfectly safe" and "Instead of thirty, now you have to bring forty five." One is reasonable, the other is an obviously broken change. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 588	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:33:12 - [739] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Or as the gankers keep saying, just bring more ppl. Rather a difference between "bring one guy with webs and you're perfectly safe" and "Instead of thirty, now you have to bring forty five." One is reasonable, the other is an obviously broken change. 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. 2) in ganking threads ive seen gankers suggest that the freighter pilots bring Web ship Commandship with links Someone to gank the bumper Enough logis to keep the freighter alive (considering the cycle time on reps, that would mean quite a lot of logis) Enough ships to kill off the gankers as soon as they get flagged. I dunnu about you and your math, but to me that comes down to a heck of a lot more then just freighter pilot + webber. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16256	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:35:56 - [740] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. First of all, you won't get bumped unless you're doing it totally wrong, and secondly you are incorrect. But then it never surprises me when carebears argue from a position of total ignorance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:43:40 - [741] - 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.
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 588	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:44:31 - [742] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. First of all, you won't get bumped unless you're doing it totally wrong, and secondly you are incorrect. But then it never surprises me when carebears argue from a position of total ignorance. Did you just call me a carebear? Carebear is a state of mind, not a profession, my friend. I would have thought warping to someone and pressing f1 would be considerd carebearing. specially considering you have the grand total of 64 kills QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 588	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:48:41 - [743] - Quote 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) QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:50:00 - [744] - 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.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3093	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:53:52 - [745] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: Or as the gankers keep saying, just bring more ppl. Rather a difference between "bring one guy with webs and you're perfectly safe" and "Instead of thirty, now you have to bring forty five." One is reasonable, the other is an obviously broken change. 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. 2) in ganking threads ive seen gankers suggest that the freighter pilots bring Web ship Commandship with links Someone to gank the bumper Enough logis to keep the freighter alive (considering the cycle time on reps, that would mean quite a lot of logis) Enough ships to kill off the gankers as soon as they get flagged. I dunno about you and your math, but to me that comes down to a heck of a lot more then just freighter pilot + webber. No one said you had to do all at once. And to be fair plenty of freighters make it through gank systems without doing any. Thats quite different to adding to the minimum amount of work to carry out a gank. You've made it clear you're bitter against gankers for what they do. That's what id call a carebear. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16258	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:54:28 - [746] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: I would have thought warping to someone and pressing f1 would be considerd carebearing. No, but arguing for more safety for afk freighters certainly is. Quote: specially considering you have the grand total of 64 kills Flying logi will do that to ya. Ain't no killmails for the healer. But the ad hom certainly doesn't help your argument, since you're unable to refute what I'm saying and therefore just make personal attacks. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:55:42 - [747] - 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?
ArmyOfMe BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 588	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:07:32 - [748] - Quote baltec1 wrote: ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly. 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" QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Lugh Crow-Slave 1562	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:07:36 - [749] - Quote 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. But significantly less than the currant ones who fit DCU's and after the change they will still be using DCU's so no they are not getting all that buffed. EDIT Will some powwow decide that 66% is fine abs rather add a damage mod probable but that's the point Citadel worm hole tax
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:14:14 - [750] - 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]

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16262	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:15:38 - [751] - Quote He more than likely meant dreads, numbskull, and it's an extremely common tactic. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1562	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:19:09 - [752] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:23:36 - [753] - 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.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 786	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:54:18 - [754] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 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 Nothing is ever 100% guaranteed in Eve when it comes to safety and nor should it be; however webbing assistance for a Freighter gets very close. The Loki support that I use has <2 second lock time and 3 Fed Navy webs overheated gives it 51km web range. On regional gates I have spawned on grid outside that range only once, but was within web range before decloaking my Freighter. Every other time I have jumped through, I've spawned within that 51km distance to the webbing assistance. That gives me 3 server ticks from decloaking to warp, which is faster than a bump Mach can react. I have 0 issue jumping into a system such as Uedama or Niarja (or surrounding systems) when there are Mach's on gate waiting. Web support is extremely effective if you use it correctly. 3 seconds from decloak to warp is extremely difficult to counter, even if there is a suicide Blackbird on grid. You basically just said what I said only more long wined Not the way I read what you wrote. It seemed what you were saying was wrong about how the webbing support works. For example, bad placement? You an be bumped before getting up to speed? Bumped before your web support even get in range? None of that makes sense with how webbing support actually works if you do it correctly. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13894	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:54:26 - [755] - Quote 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. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 380	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:56:25 - [756] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate This sounds a lot like "I don't care about your concerns, we're doing it anyway because screw you".
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 928	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:57:28 - [757] - 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. Could you restrict the HP buffs to just freighters? Anshars and arks are already too tanky if fit for it. Anshars get 1m EHP after this change and that is completely unreasonable. Not to mention they can always just jump out if they get bumped. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 380	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:57:33 - [758] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. There is nothing clever about bringing more people. Over 500k EHP for a simple bulkheaded obelisk is unacceptable.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 787	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:58:31 - [759] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. There are more than gankers concerned about this change. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Mag's Rabble Inc. 21293	Posted - 2016.02.14 16:59:31 - [760] - 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. Do you have figures on how much the barge changes killed off their ganking? Just on this whole balance line. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 928	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:04:18 - [761] - 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. Buff the ships that you think need it. Jump freighters DO NOT NEED AN EHP BUFF. Ark already has 1080k EHP with a proper tank. Anshar already has 750k EHP with bulkheads. Anshar absolutely does not need a 50% ehp buff EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7207	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:06:59 - [762] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: The most common suicide tackle used is a Blackbird that is sensor boosted. It is unbonused on point range and has no way to know when you are going to decloak. With a sensor boosted webbing support, the lock time if both ships is <2 seconds, but you have the advantage of knowing when you will decloak and can coordinate that with the Webber (whether it's a friend or an alt). The webs land and put you in warp before the Blackbird achieves lock if you know what you are doing. That or they just use a smaller instant lock tackle and either have a couple of them or take a chance that the right target will land in the right area. Using gang links helps maintain coverage. Coordinating with a webber sounds reasonable on paper, but if it's your own alt you have to hit both screens and over the web with a mate there's a delay on chat that makes it pretty much the same as just watching someone through one side and eagerly awaiting them on the other. It's certainly not a given that using a webber makes you immune to being bumped or that being bumped with a webber on grid is a sign of personal failing. Sometimes the other guy is just better, luckier or both. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16262	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:12:46 - [763] - 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. I just won EVE. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 788	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:19:27 - [764] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: That or they just use a smaller instant lock tackle and either have a couple of them or take a chance that the right target will land in the right area. Using gang links helps maintain coverage. Coordinating with a webber sounds reasonable on paper, but if it's your own alt you have to hit both screens and over the web with a mate there's a delay on chat that makes it pretty much the same as just watching someone through one side and eagerly awaiting them on the other. It's certainly not a given that using a webber makes you immune to being bumped or that being bumped with a webber on grid is a sign of personal failing. Sometimes the other guy is just better, luckier or both. Except that they don't do that at all and you can invent all different scenarios that have no actual use in the game currently to imagine how webbing support doesn't work. It does and when done well is near impossible to counter. I use both approaches, sometimes an alt, sometimes a friend. Communications lag? You have 1 minute cloak timer to communicate all you like. It's not Comms that is the trigger for when the webs start lock, it's the appearance of the freighter in space. If you are well coordinated, no Comms is even necessary because both people know what they are doing. That's just part of being responsible for managing risks. Server lag to CCP servers is a bigger issue than Comms lag. Disconnects, slow ping, bad luck - thankfully are equal for everyone, bumpers and tacklers just as much as freighters and webbers. That's just part and parcel of the game; whether it's hauling, missioning or pvp. But, once again I can see this heading towards a circular discussion where fantasy is used as a counter to what actually happens in game no I have no desire to enter the twilight zone, so I'll leave you there alone and end this conversation here. You can believe what you like and meanwhile those of us that use webs well and think our way through situations will continue about our business safely. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3093	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:25:14 - [765] - 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. Despite the obvious 'drat' that comes with this, it's still good to get up-to-date thoughts from CCP on the matter. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 79	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:25:36 - [766] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! Could you please just tell everyone you will be reducing hull hp for all ships that cannot fit a dcu so all these mongoloids can leave and let the rest of us actually discuss the damage control as a module concept in peace?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7207	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:29:08 - [767] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Except that they don't do that at all and you can invent all different scenarios that have no actual use in the game currently to imagine how webbing support doesn't work. It does and when done well is near impossible to counter. I use both approaches, sometimes an alt, sometimes a friend. webbing support does work, but only because it's easier to catch a freighter without webbing support. If gankers chose to catch webbing freighters they'd have a pretty good shot at it. It's certainly not "near impossible to counter". Violet Crumble wrote: Communications lag? You have 1 minute cloak timer to communicate all you like. It's not Comms that is the trigger for when the webs start lock, it's the appearance of the freighter in space. If you are well coordinated, no Comms is even necessary because both people know what they are doing. That's just part of being responsible for managing risks. But you're saying that by communicating, you will know the second someone will come out of cloak, giving them an advantage over a ganker. That's not the case, all the ganker has to do is see them go thorugh the gate on one side then click on the freighter set to red on the other the moment it appears. Communicating on team speak won't make the webber faster at that. Violet Crumble wrote: But, once again I can see this heading towards a circular discussion Perhaps it is, because people like yourself pick facts for how it suits you rather than how things actually are. Webbing != gank immunity. Simple. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17420	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:34:12 - [768] - 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.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 788	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:38:43 - [769] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Webbing != gank immunity. Simple. No one has said it is. Nor should it and nor should there be immunity in the game. No one is 100% safe in space and that is how it should be. Simple. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:39:44 - [770] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate This sounds a lot like "I don't care about your concerns, we're doing it anyway because screw you". No, it sounds like he is trying to look at it from 2 points of view How it affects ganking How it affects everything else in the game

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 382	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:39:48 - [771] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. Additionally the hypocrisy here is that you aren't requiring freighter pilots to be resourceful at all. No, they get handed everything they want on a silver platter.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3095	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:40:58 - [772] - Quote 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. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
COMMANDERTRIP Bat Country Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:54:12 - [773] - Quote Look dudes, there is an abundance of tears over this change and I really think you should listen to what Fozzie is saying. This change makes it a little more difficult, you will have to plan your targets more and be generally better at the game. Currently as it stands you can gank every single freighter/ jump freighter humanly possible and do so at very little individual cost. Therefore this removes the selectivity of the hunt. Eve is renowned for its selectivity and hunting therefore this change will bring it back more in-line with where ganking should be. Hopefully this will put an end to all of those HORRIBLE solo ganking videos on youtube, usually found under "LEET PVP" and such. puts on tin foil hat Also ganking communities remind me of cults which are engineered for the line members to pay the costs and the hierarchy to profit. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1878447&#post1878447
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 39	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:56:57 - [774] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Additionally the hypocrisy here is that you aren't requiring freighter pilots to be resourceful at all. No, they get handed everything they want on a silver platter. We don't see any heads on silver platters yet, as would be traditional, but do you hear us whining about it? Of course you don't.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17422	Posted - 2016.02.14 17:57:12 - [775] - 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.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio 1218	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:09:04 - [776] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! Changing it to be harder to fit for non T2 is a godawful way of making them 'less important'. The very fact T2 sits effectively unchanged is bonkers next to this. If you want to make them less important strip the shield and armor resists.
Ford Fugger xXFuggerXx 0	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:10:13 - [777] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ... adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. ... So rats will have those resists too, right?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7207	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:12:28 - [778] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Webbing != gank immunity. Simple. No one has said it is. Nor should it and nor should there be immunity in the game. No one is 100% safe in space and that is how it should be. Simple. This change moves the game towards that, especially for jump freighters. My Anshar is already immensely safe when hauling packages up to 341K m^3. More tank seems crazy. How anyone loses a jump freighter in highsec now is unbelievable let alone adding 33% hull resists. There's no challenge in hauling anything when I can top 1 million EHP if I want, let alone jump out at the first sign of trouble. How does it? It adds some defense which means that if they are caught there's a bit more of a buffer to get though. You mention that it jumps out at the first sign of trouble, but that is completely unaffected by how much EHP they have, they could jump out regardless so it's irrelevant to this change. Webbing is the same, the existence of webbing has no bearing on how much of a EHP buff they gain from a balance pass since if the webbing is effective their EHP doesn't come into play. That said, even with this change, an empty freighter will still be killboard green. Daichi Yamato wrote: Lucas, you don't 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. Sure I do, but a disruptor range, especially boosted is a considerable amount higher than a web range. It's not hard to be in suicide point range if they really want to be. Daichi Yamato wrote: 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. Yep, that's how choices work. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 443	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:12:33 - [779] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Why do you need to get closer? 30km webs pretty much cover all bases anyway, don't they? Can the random landing spots be further than 30 km from each other? Even if they are, experience doing this has told me the freighter only needs to accelerate to about 26 kph if using a single-web (never tried two). That's....how many seconds? If he's afraid of being bumped, that's an absurdly short amount of time for a mach to identify a target, align, speed up, adjust course so he doesn't slow down on approach, then finally impact with enough force to change the course of the freighter. I've done the webbing thing before for my friends. I have not been on the bumper side before, so I'm not going to declare absolute numbers. So, bumpers tell me, what minimum distance do you need in a mach to make a good impact? How many seconds does it take for you to cover that distance? If the freighter gets bumped anyway, I'm going to guess you can use webs to slow him down from the impact, turn off the webs, let him try to realign, and re-engage the webs when he gets aligned to something else. But that's only a guess! Again, bumpers will have to let me know if that's a viable strategy, because I've never had a freighter get bumped while I was webbing them. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17422	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:15:26 - [780] - 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.

Ann Angel Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:16:18 - [781] - Quote 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
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1791	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:18:09 - [782] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! 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. Thank you for your reply, and double thank you for spending your free time on a sunday to do so. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16263	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:18:49 - [783] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! Changing it to be harder to fit for non T2 is a godawful way of making them 'less important'. The very fact T2 sits effectively unchanged is bonkers next to this. If you want to make them less important strip the shield and armor resists. I already suggested that, but it makes too much sense. I'd wager this is going to be a repeat of the Entosis debacle, where player feedback is completely ignored, the poorly thought out change ramrodded through to the sounds of unsubs (including my own, I've had enough Trammel) and then backpedalled after it's been made painfully apparent what a bad idea it was. Feedback threads aren't for feedback anymore, they haven't been for some time. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17423	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:26:25 - [784] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7208	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:30:28 - [785] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17423	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:40:06 - [786] - 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.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 788	Posted - 2016.02.14 18:58:19 - [787] - Quote COMMANDERTRIP wrote: Look dudes, there is an abundance of tears over this change and I really think you should listen to what Fozzie is saying. This change makes it a little more difficult, you will have to plan your targets more and be generally better at the game. Meanwhile my competition can be worse at the game. As for listening to Fozzie, I respect all of the developers and understand that they have to balance multiple views. That doesn't however mean that we all should blindly accept proposals and stop giving feedback, positive or negative. There are a lot of examples recently of changes made for the good of the game as a whole, that weren't. Trollceptors? Almost universal concern within the community beforehand ignored. Change was worse for the game. Initial Fozziesov? Almost universal concern by the playtesting Alliances beforehand ignored. Change was initially worse. Pre-nerf Svipul? Almost instantly broke lowsec meta. There are other examples. They are three that no matter which side of the gank/anti-gank debate you are on, there was broad consensus about the negative impact those changes had on the game. So there is nothing to fear from providing feedback. Not caring to provide feedback would be worse. There's just hope that while we should listen to Fozzie, he will do the same and changes like those above don't occur too often. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7209	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:00:06 - [788] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Unlike you I am perfectly willing to use the tools and mechanics to beat them. It seems that if by 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. Me though, I'm totally willing, just I think those tools should be balanced. I use the tools and mechanics of "paying someone else to do it", because the time it takes to drag a freighter across highsec isn't even worth the lost opportunity cost, let alone the additional risk of losing a ship or losing further time to being bumped for a laugh. I actually make more isk if a ship carrying my goods gets blown up, so in effect I support for a nerf to that in favour of improving the game for hauler and anti-ganker playstyles. How altruistic of me. Violet Crumble wrote: There are a lot of examples recently of changes made for the good of the game as a whole, that weren't. Perhaps however the reason they didn't listen to that feedback is down to the recent habit of players acting like every single change is the end of the world and destroys the core of EVE, not matter how big or small the change is. They need quality feedback, not just a large quantity of "this destroys the game because it's a minor inconvenience to me". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 930	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:16:10 - [789] - Quote In light of recent events I request CCP permanently reinforce Uedama and Niarja server nodes to prepare for serious lag. Get ready for 400 concord ships being spawned in 1-2 seconds on top of 100 people simultainiously shooting with their ships and I guess 200-400 drones out. Oh and add smartbombs to that. Smartbombs on 3-5 ships colliding with everything I mentioned. I hope you do realize what this means for server lag. --edit-- I forgot about faction police. Add another 400 NPC ships with ewar to that picture. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7209	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:22:08 - [790] - Quote Ooh, how very dramatic. I think their servers will cope. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17425	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:23:40 - [791] - 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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 930	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:24:23 - [792] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ooh, how very dramatic. I think their servers will cope. Considering how we already hit tidi every time we ganked triple bulkheads I don't think so. Concord on gate already cause desync on our current fleet sizes, 50% bigger fleets arent going to make it any better. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7209	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:29:43 - [793] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: Considering how we already hit tidi every time we ganked triple bulkheads I don't think so. Concord on gate already cause desync on our current fleet sizes, 50% bigger fleets arent going to make it any better. They seem to manage OK most of the time, even with burn X events spilling into multiple systems. Honestly it sounds like you're saying "you totally shouldn't do this because we'll use so many ships the servers will lag if you do". Probably one of the weakest arguments we've seen so far. Even the smaller nullsec fights will have more involved than most ganks and there's very rarely a server fire over them. I should imagine if it gets too much they'll make concord twice as tough and halve the amount of them that spawn, so no worries. Ed: out of curiosity, what gank ships are you using that you need to bring 100 of them that use drones? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jack Hayson Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 355	Posted - 2016.02.14 19:38:52 - [794] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ed: out of curiosity, what gank ships are you using that you need to bring 100 of them that use drones? Have you never heard of the mighty Exaggerator? It does 1 dps and can launch 50 drones.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2211	Posted - 2016.02.14 20:15:53 - [795] - 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). It's clear you are taking a no-work, easy way to tweak the ganking balance while making another change which is fine. But I implore you, that you cannot just keep cranking up safety forever as aggressors get more adept at working your game mechanics. More mechanical safety just raises the bar to require larger, and larger groups sizes to brute force the mechanics. You figured this out for your Aegis Sov changes. The huge HP wall of Dominion sov kept small groups out of the game, preventing even the possibility of conflict occurring. Many groups didn't gave the DPS/group sizes to compete so they were locked out. So you came up with the entosis module which allowed groups from the smallest alliance, to the largest coalition to play the game. Great, now do the same for highsec. Making ganking harder across the board does nothing but set players up for catastrophic losses when they finally do unknowingly make themselves a profitable target and locks out solo/small group players from playing the game as criminals. Raising wardec fees during the last wardec revamp did the same thing - it pushed agressor players into large wardec corporations to share costs and by making initiating conflict cost to much, it just won't happen as much. Wardecs costs too much for small corps to routinely use and when they do end up trying a war and end up facing professional mercenary corps, they are completely outclassed because of this consolidation. So when you do get around to looking at CrimeWatch/Corporation/Wardec mechanics next for a proper revamp, don't try to balance things by just making it harder to attack. Go with the entosis strategy where attacking is easy, but defending is even easier. Otherwise, players will eventually stop attacking because it is too costly, or even be unable to meet the arbitrary DPS/group size requirements to even attempt to attack, and things will just stop happening in this player-driven, sandbox game. Make mechanics that support the play of groups of all sizes and defeating this N+1 problem a major goal of your next major re-design of highsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7209	Posted - 2016.02.14 20:31:57 - [796] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: So when you do get around to looking at CrimeWatch/Corporation/Wardec mechanics next for a proper revamp, don't try to balance things by just making it harder to attack. Go with the entosis strategy where attacking is easy, but defending is even easier. Otherwise, players will eventually stop attacking because it is too costly, or even be unable to meet the arbitrary DPS/group size requirements to even attempt to attack, and things will just stop happening in this player-driven, sandbox game. Make mechanics that support the play of groups of all sizes and defeating this N+1 problem a major goal of your next major re-design of highsec. I agree with this sentiment. Please note however that by "go with the entosis strategy" this should not be "add entosis links to highsec" as entosis links make everyone cry, even Santa, and he's jolly. That said, in lieu of overall changes to the mechanics, passive defense buffs are fine. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2016.02.14 20:41:46 - [797] - 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. I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes. Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping balance in freighter ganking. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes. Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3399	Posted - 2016.02.14 20:52:28 - [798] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: 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. I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes. Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes. Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on. So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows. Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me. Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 153	Posted - 2016.02.14 20:58:42 - [799] - Quote Reviewing....Please stand by. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:39:54 - [800] - Quote ISD Max Trix wrote: I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs. Thanks for nuking the reply I had pending :( Mike Azariah wrote: BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: 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. I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes. Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes. Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on. So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows. Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me. Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too. m The discussion isn't very productive when you admittedly take an obtuse stance and tell me to deal with it. Most everyone in the game is okay with the DC (Not Drone Control Unit (DCU)) becoming less necessary, but freighters never experienced the benefits of the DC, so adding that bonus to them doesn't make sense to us. And that's our problem: while it introduces interesting fitting and play options to every ship and playstyle in the game, it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to our play style or our fitting options. No one is telling you that freighters are invincible. Jump freighters, possible, but not freighters. Indeed, just go look at ZKill. I think you, like other people, can't wrap your head around the fact that ganking isn't easy. I'm not talking about shooting a miner or f1ing on a freighter fleet, but the scouting, bumping, FCing, supplying, fitting, organizing. There are three ganking organizations in the game (MiniLuv, CODE., Russian Spectres), and the reason that ganking is so common is because each of those organizations has a core of members that dedicate 110% of their play time to ganking. I haven't been to nullsec to kill something in months, though it sounds nice. We understand about over-fishing and elk are dead too. MiniLuv operated at a loss between September 1st and January 1st due to anti-gankers, wreck shooters and over-fishing. Ganking and big whales come in cycles. Many line members of MiniLuv suggested a 30% Hull HP increase as opposed to 30% Hull Resist for freighters and jump freighters. It makes the effect more evenly distributed across fits and keeps JFs just slightly more in the 'we can kill you range' not that they aren't already next to impossible to kill.

Alexis Nightwish 421	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:49:32 - [801] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! You've raised the CPU cost a lot in this tiericide: Faint Epsilon scram by 2 (no one will use the other named because the range is too short) Sebo II by 6 Phased Muon damp by 7 TP formally known as PWNAGE by 4 The IFFA by 3 You've lowered the CPU cost of only one module I can think of, the Fleeting web by 1. You know, some of us use the DC for the non-stacking penalized armor or shield bonus more than the hull bonus, and some of us use the IFFA on our ships because they're frigates and don't have any CPU to begin with! I don't know why you guys are so infatuated with round numbers all of a sudden. You don't actually have to make everything a multiple of 5. Just lower the cost to 17, and reduce the bonuses a little if needed to justify the fitting reduction. Telling us to use the garbage compact damage mod or not fit a DC is just a cop out. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:50:38 - [802] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: ISD Max Trix wrote: I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs. Thanks for nuking the reply I had pending :( Mike Azariah wrote: BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: 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. I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes. Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes. Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on. So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows. Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me. Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too. m The discussion isn't very productive when you admittedly take an obtuse stance and tell me to deal with it. Most everyone in the game is okay with the DC (Not Drone Control Unit (DCU)) becoming less necessary, but freighters never experienced the benefits of the DC, so adding that bonus to them doesn't make sense to us. And that's our problem: while it introduces interesting fitting and play options to every ship and playstyle in the game, it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to our play style or our fitting options. No one is telling you that freighters are invincible. Jump freighters, possible, but not freighters. Indeed, just go look at ZKill. I think you, like other people, can't wrap your head around the fact that ganking isn't easy. I'm not talking about shooting a miner or f1ing on a freighter fleet, but the scouting, bumping, FCing, supplying, fitting, organizing. There are three ganking organizations in the game (MiniLuv, CODE., Russian Spectres), and the reason that ganking is so common is because each of those organizations has a core of members that dedicate 110% of their play time to ganking. I haven't been to nullsec to kill something in months, though it sounds nice. We understand about over-fishing and elk are dead too. MiniLuv operated at a loss between September 1st and January 1st due to anti-gankers, wreck shooters and over-fishing. Ganking and big whales come in cycles. Many line members of MiniLuv suggested a 30% Hull HP increase as opposed to 30% Hull Resist for freighters and jump freighters. It makes the effect more evenly distributed across fits and keeps JFs just slightly more in the 'we can kill you range' not that they aren't already next to impossible to kill. 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
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 386	Posted - 2016.02.14 21:59:31 - [803] - 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. 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%.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7209	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:04:37 - [804] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: 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%. Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. Ships who could fit a DC but it was better not to will be getting a resist buff that their fits would never have included (this includes gank ships which will be harder to kill but didn't include a DC prior to the change), while fits that used a DC will get a base resist buff then a free lowslot, either to increase the resist further with a new DC or to improve another aspect of their ship. Your ideas to exclude freighters from the buff and thus give them a nerf relative to other ships comes purely from you wanting to shield your playstyle from an increased effort requirement, not from a desire to improve the game. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17426	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:11:09 - [805] - 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 - [806] - 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.
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:13:50 - [807] - Quote baltec1 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. 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. Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 386	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:20:55 - [808] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: 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%. Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. If freighters could shoot other ships, the EHP of other ships (which are currently either fitting damage control both before and after and are thus not getting a buff or are gank ships that don't care about EHP) would be relevant to them. They cannot. Reducing their base hull by the same amount as the resistances they acquire is not nerfing freighters, it is maintaining the status quo.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:21:25 - [809] - 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 Freighters and jump freighters were already special snowflakes in that regard. There are 5 mods that can be used, adaptive nano postings, inertial stabilizers, nano fibers, bulkheads, overdrive injectors.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 386	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:22:16 - [810] - Quote Crackforbreakfast wrote: Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates? We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous.

BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:22:56 - [811] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: 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%. Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. Ships who could fit a DC but it was better not to will be getting a resist buff that their fits would never have included (this includes gank ships which will be harder to kill but didn't include a DC prior to the change), while fits that used a DC will get a base resist buff then a free lowslot, either to increase the resist further with a new DC or to improve another aspect of their ship. Your ideas to exclude freighters from the buff and thus give them a nerf relative to other ships comes purely from you wanting to shield your playstyle from an increased effort requirement, not from a desire to improve the game. You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships.
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 49	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:23:28 - [812] - Quote 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. An otherwise naked hecate in defensive mode is going to go from about 5200 EHP to 6300 ehp without a DC fit, with or without trasnverse bulkheads it's going to be about a 20% increase in ehp for any fit without a DC. You'll still lose about a third of your EHP vs any fit that uses a DC. A pretty reasonable decrease, since the extra module you'd fit in it's place would likely be a third magstab that would suffer from a 57.1% effectiveness stacking penalty and thus would net about 11% more DPS. For combat ships, this seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7210	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:24:55 - [813] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: If freighters could shoot other ships, the EHP of other ships (which are currently either fitting damage control both before and after and are thus not getting a buff or are gank ships that don't care about EHP) would be relevant to them. They cannot. Reducing their base hull by the same amount as the resistances they acquire is not nerfing freighters, it is maintaining the status quo. Freighters are supposed to be guarded by other ships though, are they not? Gank ships get shot down by the ships guarding the freighters, so their EHP allows them to sustain more damage meaning more damage output before concord arrives. So not only is it a nerf relative to other ships by buffing all other ships, it's a direct nerf to their survivability against the enemies that hunt them. BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships. Sorry, but I think you've misread mine. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:25:59 - [814] - Quote Crackforbreakfast wrote: baltec1 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. 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. Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates? I've made several good posts on reddit about what risk is, how risk plays into ganking, and how gankers can decrease risk and how adversaries increase risk. I don't think this is the place for that discussion. Regardless, this seems like a poorly thought out piece to bring up, akin to so what or no u. But if this change doesn't increase risk to gankers, what does it accomplish?
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 386	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:31:24 - [815] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Freighters are supposed to be guarded by other ships though, are they not? Ha, no, they have CCP guarding them. Take a screenshot when you see a freighter flying with dps escort in highsec, you saw a true rarity. Quote: Gank ships get shot down by the ships guarding the freighters, so their EHP allows them to sustain more damage meaning more damage output before concord arrives. Catalysts are paper before and after this change. They gain all of 562 EHP. Quote: So not only is it a nerf relative to other ships by buffing all other ships, it's a direct nerf to their survivability against the enemies that hunt them. Not really, not at all. And the actual practical dps counter, rather than what AG uses, still works just fine. No I am not telling you what it is.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 386	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:33:41 - [816] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: No, you have a 99% ship loss rate. Scouts and Bumpers must be counted too if you are going to call everything even. Okay we have a 99% guaranteed loss rate, the scouts are at normal risk, the bumpers are at normal risk (and do in fact get ganked, quite profitably at that), and the looters are at very high risk as unless the loot is DSTable (which it frequently is not), they have to go suspect in a freighter while surrounded by third parties.
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5686	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:44:10 - [817] - 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. Obviously my friends in CODE will do well out of this change. We have the numbers, organisation, logistical backbone and professionalism to still effectively gank and with less competition ganking freighters will start to carry more. The last buff to freighters was a godsend to us, as we (internally) expected at the time. We'll be able to afford to train more pilots, PLEX more accounts and pay for more Catalysts with the additional drops we get at the expense of other gankers. It's however very bad for the future of the game. What you are saying here to newer players is 'if you want to gank, you need to join CODE. or Miniluv or the Russian gankers'. And to people that want to stay independant, you are saying don't bother. Competently piloted freighters with an adequate escort are almost unkillable already in highsec and lowsec, and DSTs and BRs are even harder to hit. We can only get the ones stupid enough not to scout AND that are unable to counter bumping. Carriers are expensive ships (on par with freighters), exceptionally strong ships at their roles (again, similar to freighters), but they aren't balanced around how the most incompetent pilots use them. Freighters should be balanced similarly around the people that use them sensibly (with a scout and a combat escort), and they presently are. Autopiloting a freighter through a 0.5 choke point should be seen as just as dumb a thing to do as ratting in a carrier in an anomaly in Rancer. You don't make carriers tougher because they die so easily in Rancer, so don't make freighters tougher because idiots lose them being idiots. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7211	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:48:32 - [818] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Ha, no, they have CCP guarding them. Take a screenshot when you see a freighter flying with dps escort in highsec, you saw a true rarity. Catalysts are paper before and after this change. They gain all of 562 EHP. Not really, not at all. And the actual practical dps counter, rather than what AG uses, still works just fine. No I am not telling you what it is. If CCP guarded them they would be unkillable. According to you lot, people are supposed to guard them. If they don't get caught then their EHP never comes into play. If they do get caught, then their EHP is relevant to their defenders. If they choose no defenders they will die, even after the change. 562 EHP gives them an extra second or two on the field, which is quite a bit for ships fit for DPS. ships other than catalysts would benefit more. Yes really. Excluding them is both a relative nerf and a direct nerf by buffing their opposition. Careful though, you're dragging this topic back into a discussion on ganking, which it's not about. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7211	Posted - 2016.02.14 22:53:13 - [819] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: What you are saying here to newer players is 'if you want to gank, you need to join CODE. or Miniluv or the Russian gankers'. And to people that want to stay independant, you are saying don't bother. I'm not sure how many new players can leap in and start killing freighters now. It's really not a solo activity, it being a capital ship and that. Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Competently piloted freighters with an adequate escort are almost unkillable already in highsec and lowsec, and DSTs and BRs are even harder to hit. We can only get the ones stupid enough not to scout AND that are unable to counter bumping. They aren't harder to kill due to EHP though, their EHP doesn't come into play if they avoid being picked as a target and/or avoid the bumper. Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Autopiloting a freighter through a 0.5 choke point should be seen as just as dumb a thing to do as ratting in a carrier in an anomaly in Rancer. It still will be. More importantly, if they chose to buff all capital ships, they wouldn't exclude carriers because some people are ratting in rancer arguing that the entire ship class deserves to be punished. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 39	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:13:32 - [820] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous. This reminds me of the comedian who earlier stated that freighters would have a 100% survival rate if they only stayed docked. If gankers did not perform acts of aggression, their loss rate would be zero. Every ganker loss results from a deliberate decision - very different from the hauler side - so risk on the ganker side is a meaningless concept. In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements.

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 387	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:20:16 - [821] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous. This reminds me of the comedian who earlier stated that freighters would have a 100% survival rate if they only stayed docked. If gankers did not perform acts of aggression, their loss rate would be zero. Every ganker loss results from a deliberate decision - very different from the hauler side - so risk on the ganker side is a meaningless concept. In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements. Okay, make concord tankable, then we can have risk too as our aggression doesn't equate to ship loss.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:22:53 - [822] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Yeah, this change is multi faceted, that was kind of my point.....that and it probably won't be solved here.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 387	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:29:02 - [823] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: 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. Not in the slightest. Bulkhead mods are a percentage increase in hull HP, not a flat increase. Where current hull ehp is x, triple bulkheaded ehp is 1.25^3 x because percentage hull hp modifier isn't a stacking penalised stat. Fozzie's changes make hull ehp x / .67 (which is 1.5 x), or a triple bulkheaded freighter 1.25^3 x / .67. Under my suggestion, the new hull ehp would be .67 x / .67 = x and bulkheaded would be 1.25^3 * .67 x / .67 = 1.25^3 x. In short, please review basic algebra.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16265	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:43:34 - [824] - Quote Ylmar wrote: In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements. Your blatantly dishonest rhetoric aside, the hauler is the only side whose choices matter at all. Actually defending yourself is so overpowered that if you do it, you have better odds of getting in a real life car accident on the way home than you do of getting ganked. Only the choices of the freighter pilot matter at all, because unless they choose wrong, the ganker never even gets to make his choice one way or the other. If every hauler acted like real players instead of lazy entitled babies, ganking would stop existing in a day or two. And that tells you which side really has all the power here. Or it would, if you weren't dishonest. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 336	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:50:19 - [825] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: .... For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot
Aiwha Infinite Point Northern Army 985	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:50:33 - [826] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances. We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks! Can you give us a comment on the "CPU creep" a lot of players are describing in recent patches, including this one? More and more it seems that CPU is becoming the main limiting factor in fittings with PG only being relevant with oversized fittings. Sanity is fun leaving the body. Aiwha for CSM XI
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 387	Posted - 2016.02.14 23:58:58 - [827] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: If CCP guarded them they would be unkillable. According to you lot, people are supposed to guard them. If they don't get caught then their EHP never comes into play. If they do get caught, then their EHP is relevant to their defenders. If they choose no defenders they will die, even after the change. 562 EHP gives them an extra second or two on the field, which is quite a bit for ships fit for DPS. ships other than catalysts would benefit more. EHP is considered so relevant by gankers that a large number of catalyst pilots created before the new starting skills do not even have hull upgrades or shield management injected and haven't trained a level of mechanics. Defenders could make it relevant, but... well... AG is so incompetent that it's frankly embarrassing to everyone involved, they're like cartoon villains. They largely fly complete failfits (actual example: a curse with no neuts, no tracking disruptors, nothing but sebos and point; I am not aware that he has had any effect on a gank to date, but he sure is persistent) and can't even use correctly fitted ships properly. A number of them fly interceptors but I don't remember the last time we've been tackled at an undock bookmark or a ping, and one of the ganks we did the other day was discussed on comms for over half an hour before the gank, took us through five stargates, we had taloses with us and a grand total of one catalyst was pointed. It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters. (Don't get me wrong though, I'm not happy about the increase in EHP on untanked ships other than freighters either. Freighters are just the more drastic change that needs to be prevented.)
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 387	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:00:17 - [828] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: .... For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot That's the "rage" part of ragequitting. Anyway my account hasn't expired.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 39	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:07:03 - [829] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Actually defending yourself is so overpowered that if you do it, you have better odds of getting in a real life car accident on the way home than you do of getting ganked. For your own sake better not bring real life into this. In real life, pirates, thieves and other asocial individuals are hunted down and locked away, their stolen assets siezed, if they threaten civilized society and the wellbeing of others, or simply because they disrupt commerce. In real life, there is absolutely nothing romantic or desirable about piracy and theft.
Marisol Aldurad EVE University Ivy League 2	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:14:24 - [830] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: You've raised the CPU cost a lot in this tiericide: Faint Epsilon scram by 2 (no one will use the other named because the range is too short) Sebo II by 6 Phased Muon damp by 7 TP formally known as PWNAGE by 4 The IFFA by 3 You've lowered the CPU cost of only one module I can think of, the Fleeting web by 1. You know, some of us use the DC for the non-stacking penalized armor or shield bonus more than the hull bonus, and some of us use the IFFA on our ships because they're frigates and don't have any CPU to begin with! I don't know why you guys are so infatuated with round numbers all of a sudden. You don't actually have to make everything a multiple of 5. Just lower the cost to 17, and reduce the bonuses a little if needed to justify the fitting reduction. Telling us to use the garbage compact damage mod or not fit a DC is just a cop out. I agree wholeheartedly. I understand the idea of offering more discreet options, but the constant increases to the fitting requirements of modules, like Alexis kindly showcased, will invalidate a TON of fits and to no good purpose. Please re-examine the fitting costs across the board in this latest Tiericide for March.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7212	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:28:29 - [831] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters. Maybe not, but it is a sign of what playstyles are being selected by players, and you have to ask yourself, why are no competent players chosing to be an AG? Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot Nobody quits EVE, we all know this. It's like crack. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 387	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:33:43 - [832] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters. Maybe not, but it is a sign of what playstyles are being selected by players, and you have to ask yourself, why are no competent players chosing to be an AG? Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun. Quote: Nobody quits EVE, we all know this. It's like crack. It's literally like crack, I've been getting withdrawal shakes from not killing carebears.
Templar Dane Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 370	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:35:28 - [833] - Quote A lot of amarr ships are cpu starved, and the various module changes seem to be a net gain in cpu required on most fits. Telling us to just remove our DCUs so that we have more cpu is pretty daft. And then to add insult to injury eccm modules are getting better. A midslot module. A certain race of ships are classically midslot gimped. And then the FW lp stores of that race's enemies are getting shiny stuff. Thanks ofozzie.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7212	Posted - 2016.02.15 00:39:37 - [834] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun. I completely agree, which is why they should be given better mechanics to cause explosions opposing your own and a reasonable shot at winning the field. If not new active mechanics can be discussed reasonably, then more passive defense as in this post will give more time for more explosions to occur. Masao Kurata wrote: It's literally like crack, I've been getting withdrawal shakes from not killing carebears. You can keep going right up until your sub expires... then resub The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 388	Posted - 2016.02.15 01:24:32 - [835] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun. I completely agree, which is why they should be given better mechanics to cause explosions opposing your own and a reasonable shot at winning the field. If not new active mechanics can be discussed reasonably, then more passive defense as in this post will give more time for more explosions to occur. The existing mechanics work, they're just not being used, but that's incredibly off topic for this thread. More EHP just means we won't undock gank fleets. There is no point undocking if it is mathematically impossible to win.
Nitshe Razvedka State War Academy Caldari State 464	Posted - 2016.02.15 01:27:06 - [836] - Quote Never one to stir the pot, nor upset CODE (much). Well done CCP in addressing the Ganker imbalance. Fleecing carebears in hisec by Gankers is a profit driven enterprise. (If gankers raise the straw-man issue of AFK mining/hauling, allow these ships to fit more effective tgt breakers for AK pilots.) Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. I would like to hear other market/profit driven incentives to A-G, even from gankers, its all about the content creation. yes. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 388	Posted - 2016.02.15 01:31:12 - [837] - Quote Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. Sure. In return, please remove facpol since players will be given incentives to do their job.
Nitshe Razvedka State War Academy Caldari State 464	Posted - 2016.02.15 01:39:43 - [838] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. Sure. In return, please remove facpol since players will be given incentives to do their job. If you gave me the powers of facpol GAME-ON. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 388	Posted - 2016.02.15 01:41:13 - [839] - Quote Nitshe Razvedka wrote: If you gave me the powers of facpol GAME-ON. You mean spawning 20km from someone at any time and infinite respawning? No dice. No drone jamming for you either. EDIT: But seriously, facpol don't do anything but prevent anything interesting happening, they should go. Should probably make a thread about that.
Sabriz Adoudel Move along there is nothing here 5690	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:21:01 - [840] - Quote Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Never one to stir the pot, nor upset CODE (much). Well done CCP in addressing the Ganker imbalance. Fleecing carebears in hisec by Gankers is a profit driven enterprise. (If gankers raise the straw-man issue of AFK mining/hauling, allow these ships to fit more effective tgt breakers for AK pilots.) Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. I would like to hear other market/profit driven incentives to A-G, even from gankers, its all about the content creation. yes. Well you'd think that anti-gankers would charge a fee for a freighter save, and anyone that doesn't pay doesn't get saved again (or possibly gets marked on a list to be ganked by A-G). But that would require the A-G folks to be rational. The rational ones generally end up changing sides because the A-G community is so toxic at present. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".

KickAss Tivianne Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity 76	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:25:52 - [841] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: ISD Max Trix wrote: I have once again remove post for being off topic. Please keep the discussion on the topic of the DCU changes, and the Hull Buffs. Thanks for nuking the reply I had pending :( Mike Azariah wrote: BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: 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. I think that's the problem that everyone on the ganking side of the equation is trying to trying to make the point on. Some of us understand that keeping a balance in the ganking scene is probably important. But this only looks at one facet of ganking (the gankers, rather than the freighters or the anit-gankers), it seems hamfisted and like it goes too far, and it doesn't play to our cleverness-- the only solution is bring more dudes. Edit: If I were in your shoes, I would think that this isn't a good solution at all for keeping the balance between freighter ganking at all. All we need do is recruit a little harder, source a little more, fit a little more frequency and we're back to where we were before this patch dropped. Because the solution is bring more dudes. Unless your only thought is that the effort required to gank (12-40 characters) isn't enough. Which I've already posted my thoughts on. So, to extend your logic it would be best to remove most of the ehp for freighters so the solo catalyst pilot can have enjoyable gameplay? Yeah, I am putting words in your mouth and doing a strawman. Live with it. The DCU is redone and some balance had to be made to make up for the loss of the ehp it gave, y'all did read the reasoning for this change, right? Now we ALL know that it will be a passive boost and the freighters will be a bit tougher, especially the ones who foolishly use cargo expanders for all three lows. Before one of you tells me that freighters are already pretty well invincible please peruse zkill and pick a freighter. Then get back to me. Yes, ganking is a thing in the game but NO it does not have to be made easy and NO it does not have to drive freighter pilots from the game rather than run the Niarja or Uedama gauntlet. When all the elk are dead the wolves will begin to die out, too. m The discussion isn't very productive when you admittedly take an obtuse stance and tell me to deal with it. Most everyone in the game is okay with the DC (Not Drone Control Unit (DCU)) becoming less necessary, but freighters never experienced the benefits of the DC, so adding that bonus to them doesn't make sense to us. And that's our problem: while it introduces interesting fitting and play options to every ship and playstyle in the game, it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to our play style or our fitting options. No one is telling you that freighters are invincible. Jump freighters, possible, but not freighters. Indeed, just go look at ZKill. I think you, like other people, can't wrap your head around the fact that ganking isn't easy. I'm not talking about shooting a miner or f1ing on a freighter fleet, but the scouting, bumping, FCing, supplying, fitting, organizing. There are three ganking organizations in the game (MiniLuv, CODE., Russian Spectres), and the reason that ganking is so common is because each of those organizations has a core of members that dedicate 110% of their play time to ganking. I haven't been to nullsec to kill something in months, though it sounds nice. We understand about over-fishing and elk are dead too. MiniLuv operated at a loss between September 1st and January 1st due to anti-gankers, wreck shooters and over-fishing. Ganking and big whales come in cycles. Many line members of MiniLuv suggested a 30% Hull HP increase as opposed to 30% Hull Resist for freighters and jump freighters. It makes the effect more evenly distributed across fits and keeps JFs just slightly more in the 'we can kill you range' not that they aren't already next to impossible to kill. I do agree with your other post, increasing HP does just increase the amount of people needed. You will have to send additional cats, or start upgrading people to Talos's. While maybe not a long term solutions, it does however that does raise the operational costs you have. As long as CCP does keep an eye on it and maybe looks to resolve the root cause, (Pregank), its a step in the right direction. As far as running an operational loss. You should probably talk to your FCs and come up with a new plan to look at targets that actually have stuff in them. Instead of just blowing up empty freighter just because your group claims the freighter is in as you say, "your space" and that they did not observe "your" laws.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:26:00 - [842] - Quote Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Never one to stir the pot, nor upset CODE (much). Well done CCP in addressing the Ganker imbalance. Fleecing carebears in hisec by Gankers is a profit driven enterprise. (If gankers raise the straw-man issue of AFK mining/hauling, allow these ships to fit more effective tgt breakers for AK pilots.) Most organized ganking groups (MiniLuv, CODE., Russians) gank for fun, not profit. MiniLuv operates purely as an ouroboros: we gank to generate revenue for MiniLuv so we can continue ganking. The most anyone is getting out of MiniLuv's profits are monthly PLEX to keep their accounts active. And these people get PLEX because they devote so much of their time to our organization that there is literally no time to go make money. Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. I would like to hear other market/profit driven incentives to A-G, even from gankers, its all about the content creation. yes. Before you get to that part, there needs to be thoughtful and engaging gameplay between gankers and anti-gankers. At the moment, anti-gankers are a thorn in our side simply because we have the choice of ganking them or ganking freighters. This is in part due to their unlimited rules of engagement against ours, but our restriction of only shooting active aggressors. The added component of Factional Police means that, aside from ganking them, there cannot be any interesting interplay between ganking and anti-ganking because we always die, regardless of whether we kill the anti-gankers or not. I am all for making ganking more interesting via adding incentives to people to engage in both sides of the gameplay, but as I discussed with several people in #TweetFleet, that can't happen until the Anti-Ganker->Ganker->Freighter asymmetrical gameplay becomes a little more symmetrical, which may or may result in good and engaging gameplay. Also, I'm poised to say that smart anti-gankers make tons of money from stealing our freighter wrecks and stealing our gank ship wrecks. Otherwise, there wouldn't be career wreck thieves and career salvagers and career loot scoopers.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:34:12 - [843] - Quote KickAss Tivianne wrote: I do agree with your other post, increasing HP does just increase the amount of people needed. You will have to send additional cats, or start upgrading people to Talos's. While maybe not a long term solutions, it does however that does raise the operational costs you have. As long as CCP does keep an eye on it and maybe looks to resolve the root cause, (Pregank), its a step in the right direction. Hi friend. You should know I'm MiniLuv, and we're not really the in the business of ganking empty freighters (unless they're red). You're right that the change does increase the operational cost of ganking, but, as I said in a previous post, it's not the monetary cost which hurts. We don't make money off of killing freighters worth 1b-5b isk. we make money off killing the 7b-20b freighters. Because that's the thing: the required DPS doesn't scale with the value of a freighter. A triple expanded freighter worth 3b falls just as easily as a triple expanded freighter worth 30b. The profit margin difference of 500m (now) to 1b (then) gank on that 3b is big, but it's insignificant in the case of the 30b freighter. So judicious choice of targets means that we don't really feel the economic effects of this change. As I've said before, the significant impact is requiring 5 to 10 more pilots, 10 to 20 more catalyst pilots. The effort required in making that happen far outweighs the loss of income we face because of increased bottom line on ganking. KickAss Tivianne wrote: As far as running an operational loss. You should probably talk to your FCs and come up with a new plan to look at targets that actually have stuff in them. Instead of just blowing up empty freighter just because your group claims the freighter is in as you say, "your space" and that they did not observe "your" laws. This was a consequence of a confluence of several factors, including, but not limited to, the end of summer / school getting back in session, increased anti-ganker presence, increased wreck shooting, hyperdunking proliferation, overfishing and more. It's really outside the scope of this discussion, but, again, MiniLuv doesn't really gank empty freighters. It only really occurs when we get thirsty / miss a gank and need to cure our blue balls. We also don't have any Code we follow or a 'your space' thing or 'our laws' thing. We gank freighters because they're fat or they're red to The Imperium. That's it. I figured after being our adversary for nearly a year, you would have learned this by now.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16266	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:38:01 - [844] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Actually defending yourself is so overpowered that if you do it, you have better odds of getting in a real life car accident on the way home than you do of getting ganked. For your own sake better not bring real life into this. In real life, pirates, thieves and other asocial individuals are hunted down and locked away, their stolen assets siezed, if they threaten civilized society and the wellbeing of others, or simply because they disrupt commerce. In real life, there is absolutely nothing romantic or desirable about piracy and theft. Ah, the "civilized society" angle. There are no civilized societies in New Eden. But your spiteful little rant was pretty funny. Just goes to show that it's the carebears who can't manage to separate their feelings from reality, like I've always said. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16266	Posted - 2016.02.15 02:40:48 - [845] - Quote Nitshe Razvedka wrote: Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. I see we aren't even trying to hide the blatant hypocrisy at this point. Gankers making a profit is "imbalanced", and in the same breath suggest that you should get paid for your petty, halfassed white knighting. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2222	Posted - 2016.02.15 07:42:04 - [846] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. Highsec seams to be a special place indeed if you are balancing game mechanics or ship stats around what a couple of players do to limit their impact. I always thought that EVE is a full sandbox, where you can set out your own goals. Now here we are, trying to change Highsec with force projection in a part of space with game mechanics entirely stacked against such things. Still we seam to move some things: Autopiloting pods/shuttles is down, the miners start to tank their ships, corporations around freighting stuff start to earn more since there is now actually risk in moving stuff around and there is a group of players forming which start to rebel against us. But there is more to come, as we grow we can put more pressure on the Highsec dwellers and in some parts they already submit to our rule. In some other parts resistance forms. No matter what happens, it is in fact a gazillion times more interesting than the otherwise dead Highsec systems. Now I think that a true multiplayer sandbox like EVE is advertised should allow for such a thing. No one can predict what will happen next. Maybe we continue to grow and Highsec will one day be united and be ruled by our Supreme Protector James 315. Maybe people get fed up so much that the long promised big miner coalition forms and starts to kill us off. Maybe something completely different no one expected will happen because this is a player driven sandbox and thousands of players contribute to the outcome. In comes CCP with the nerf bat and resets part of the progress with another buff. Not only do you nerf it once again, you practically tell us that you view this as some kind of elk farm and you will always step in and reverse our progress by handing out buffs to the opposition. In other words the interesting stuff I talked about previously? It will never ever happen, because you seam to think that Highsec is not part of this dynamic player influenced sandbox, it is in fact an elk farm with CCP supervision. If you look to nullsec, are you "balancing" things between player business out there as well? As you watch alliance A stumble because alliance B is invading and wrecking all their stuff, will you buff the doctrine ships of alliance A to maintain the "balance". Or is null not an elk farm like Highsec? I could understand it if you actually wanted to change game mechanics around ganking with the intention to make the gameplay more interesting on both sides. But you do no such thing, you just rise the EHP like this is something in need of a hull rebalance and not in need of a change. It is incredibly lazy and the only thing it changes is that it makes ganking once again less accessible. What in James name scares you so much about change in Highsec? It's not like we destroy the economy anytime soon, in fact the economy will always adapt and maybe it will be more interesting than before. It just seams like CCP is not ready for some really big changes. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7212	Posted - 2016.02.15 07:45:36 - [847] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: Also, I'm poised to say that smart anti-gankers make tons of money from stealing our freighter wrecks and stealing our gank ship wrecks. Otherwise, there wouldn't be career wreck thieves and career salvagers and career loot scoopers. Doesn't sound very smart if their method of making isk involves failing their primary goal then running away with the loot. The reality is that both anti-ganking mechanics and rewards are incredibly weak, and not at all on par with ganking in either regard. That's why there's no big anti-ganking group, because nobody wants to do something that is near impossible, no fun and rewards nothing if by some miracle it's pulled off successfully. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Oxide Ammar 231	Posted - 2016.02.15 09:47:30 - [848] - Quote As far as I remember before when freighters got changes with the low slots Fozzie mentioned they want to make DCU passive module and freighters can benefit from it. So now he is fulfilling his promise right now but he had 3 options to do so: 1- Make DCU passive as he promised and reduce its PWG/CPU requirements so it can be fitted in freighters. Problem with this option it is putting some fits of frigs and destroyers out of whack which create imbalances. 2- Increase the PWG/CPU of freighters to fit DCU with couple of other modules also. Problem with this option it opens a lot of varieties to freighters to fit active hardeners since they are going to buff its CPU for that matter, You are create super tanky ungankable freighters that can OH their modules. They can't go to this road unless they are revisiting every low slot module so it can't be used by freighters. 3- Making DCU passive and nerfing it for the stated reasons in OP and to compensate that, they are giving plain HP buff to all ships in game but since freighters were originally promised to be able to fit DCU they won't be excluded from that buff. If I'm able to dig in forums to find that old statement I'll link it. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Icarius The Wings of Maak 29	Posted - 2016.02.15 11:10:06 - [849] - Quote 1/ With such a hp boost, for solo pvper, forget about freighter. Any freighter will be able to reach the gate, even double webbed, even with 1200dps. On the other hand, people like CODE will have no problem to form up with 33% more members ... thx again 2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf? In fact, you should do it once for all ... change the rules guys, come on !!! Any attacker should see his dmg reduce to 25% in your wonderfull game for kids
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 39	Posted - 2016.02.15 12:02:54 - [850] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Just goes to show that it's the carebears who can't manage to separate their feelings from reality, like I've always said. Oh, you've said a lot over the course of this thread, alas, the substance is lacking. Randomly calling players liars or hypocrites, aggressively attacking their "blatantly dishonest rethoric" (snort) for no other reason than that they don't share your views just goes to show how little you care for civilized discourse. But just keep talking, statistically there is a chance you might say something worthwhile, one of these days.

Cearain Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis 1452	Posted - 2016.02.15 12:20:55 - [851] - Quote Sorry if I missed this but what dc will become which after the streamline? Also since the meta 4s are so much better and more expensive have you considered changing them to a storyline or a new faction version. As someone who likes frigate pvp this flat out beef will sting the pocketbook. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 439	Posted - 2016.02.15 12:32:15 - [852] - Quote 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. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17426	Posted - 2016.02.15 12:38:13 - [853] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7213	Posted - 2016.02.15 13:24:28 - [854] - Quote Icarius wrote: 1/ With such a hp boost, for solo pvper, forget about freighter. Any freighter will be able to reach the gate, even double webbed, even with 1200dps. On the other hand, people like CODE will have no problem to form up with 33% more members ... thx again Are you suggesting that right now, pre-change, you are able to solo gank a freighter? Icarius wrote: 2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf? After the change you will have a 33% hull resist buff. You will then be able to decide if you want to continue to use a DC, giving you more resists than prior to the change in some cases, or improve another aspect of your ship without losing that 33%. Icarius wrote: In fact, you should do it once for all ... change the rules guys, come on !!! Any attacker should see his dmg reduce to 25% in your wonderfull game for kids lol. baltec1 wrote: 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. If everyone else simply ignored every beneficial change and grouped our playstyle with all other mildly similar playstyles like "high sec pirates" do, then most playstyles would have been heavily nerfed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio 1222	Posted - 2016.02.15 13:35:12 - [855] - Quote Maybe burn jita should be brought forward.
Fredric Wolf Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team 116	Posted - 2016.02.15 14:47:50 - [856] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: Before you get to that part, there needs to be thoughtful and engaging gameplay between gankers and anti-gankers. At the moment, anti-gankers are a thorn in our side simply because we have the choice of ganking them or ganking freighters. This is in part due to their unlimited rules of engagement against ours, but our restriction of only shooting active aggressors. The added component of Factional Police means that, aside from ganking them, there cannot be any interesting interplay between ganking and anti-ganking because we always die, regardless of whether we kill the anti-gankers or not. I am all for making ganking more interesting via adding incentives to people to engage in both sides of the gameplay, but as I discussed with several people in #TweetFleet, that can't happen until the Anti-Ganker->Ganker->Freighter asymmetrical gameplay becomes a little more symmetrical, which may or may result in good and engaging gameplay. Also, I'm poised to say that smart anti-gankers make tons of money from stealing our freighter wrecks and stealing our gank ship wrecks. Otherwise, there wouldn't be career wreck thieves and career salvagers and career loot scoopers. What if, and this is a large what if. CCP was to expand on Faction warfare to include pirates and police? by choosing to join a pirate faction you are granted some breaks in hi sec while also incurring drawbacks. This would also go for the people joining the police side.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3096	Posted - 2016.02.15 14:57:53 - [857] - Quote Fredric Wolf wrote: What if, and this is a large what if. CCP was to expand on Faction warfare to include pirates and police? by choosing to join a pirate faction you are granted some breaks in hi sec while also incurring drawbacks. This would also go for the people joining the police side. That really depends how it works and what breaks criminals would benefit from. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 934	Posted - 2016.02.15 15:29:27 - [858] - Quote Quote: 2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf? WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO BAD AT MATH. 33% resists is 50% more ehp because you deal 66% damage that you did before. I will make this really simple. Ship A has 1000 hp 0% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 100 dps, take 10 seconds to kill. Ship B has 1000 hp 33% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 67 dps, takes 15 seconds to kill. It is 50% buff, this isn't rocket science. It would be but we drive space submarines. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 815	Posted - 2016.02.15 16:03:47 - [859] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Maybe burn jita should be brought forward. Won't give 95% profit per gank, wont happen... Now CCP just needs to kill off 3rd person looting. Then we're good!
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 815	Posted - 2016.02.15 16:07:19 - [860] - Quote Icarius wrote: 1/ With such a hp boost, for solo pvper, forget about freighter. Any freighter will be able to reach the gate, even double webbed, even with 1200dps. On the other hand, people like CODE will have no problem to form up with 33% more members ... thx again 2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf? In fact, you should do it once for all ... change the rules guys, come on !!! Any attacker should see his dmg reduce to 25% in your wonderfull game for kids You got that bonus too... ...unless you like having the buff but your targets can't? The delusional self entitled brat is strong with this one!

tasman devil HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 71	Posted - 2016.02.15 16:44:37 - [861] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: It's happening! We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Damage Controls. The issue with Damage Controls is that they're essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships. This limits fitting choice quite significantly. However because they're so powerful and so ubiquitous, simply nerfing them would be a large EHP nerf to almost every ship in EVE, knocking a lot of other dynamics out of balance. So the plan is to nerf the hull resistance bonus of damage controls by a large margin, but also buff every ship in the game at the same time to compensate. We'll be reducing the hull resist benefit of Damage Controls by about 1/3 (going to 40% for T2 and 30% for T1) but also adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. We're also planning on completing two long-time player requests: 1) Adding faction and officer versions of Damage Controls 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules We recognize that this is a pretty huge and far-reaching set of changes, so we'll be especially interested in all your feedback from SISI! Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers: [img]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/Damage_Controls.jpg[/img] We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading. Thanks! hmm this one I can approve (also: gankers got ganked here and crying like victims ... [oh the irony!]) much salt very tears such lols I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1936	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:12:56 - [862] - 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. You don't really seem to be normalizing for skill in doing this, though. At present, a skilled freighter pilot is virtually immune to ganking in high sec. After this, a skilled freighter pilot will still be virtually immune to ganking in high sec. This is as it should be. At present, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has a small chance of being ganked in high sec. After this, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has an even smaller chance of being ganked in high sec. This shifts the balance away from skillful play, and toward lazy/inattentive/unskilled play, which doesn't really seem to be beneficial for the game as a whole. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 282	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:16:11 - [863] - Quote Easily acceptable changes. Everyone all around gets buffed, and some of my fits have to be tweaked harder on my Alt to kill in Hi-sec. Let em cry Fozzie, this games always been adapt or die. Even with an increase of cost per freighter gank profit margins will still be high as long as you pick the right targets. As of current meta, Kill em all and laugh to the bank.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 441	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:18:01 - [864] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Solo pvp, I'm lucky if I can even break even. My playstyle is already very poor in terms of ISK hour/effort. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7214	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:38:22 - [865] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: You don't really seem to be normalizing for skill in doing this, though. At present, a skilled freighter pilot is virtually immune to ganking in high sec. After this, a skilled freighter pilot will still be virtually immune to ganking in high sec. This is as it should be. At present, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has a small chance of being ganked in high sec. After this, a bumbling schmuck of a freighter pilot has an even smaller chance of being ganked in high sec. This shifts the balance away from skillful play, and toward lazy/inattentive/unskilled play, which doesn't really seem to be beneficial for the game as a whole. That would suggest however that you believe changes should never be made if they will benefit a "bumbling schmuck" as well as other players, which pretty much means no changes would ever be made. At the end of the day, the biggest part of a gank is catching and holding the pilot, which doesn't require EHP. The EHP of the pilot only affects how many bumbling schmucks of gankers you need to hammer F1. Let's face it, most of the pilots involved in a gank aren't much better than the freighter pilot, they just have someone telling them when to press their buttons. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1941	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:52:40 - [866] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: That would suggest however that you believe changes should never be made if they will benefit a "bumbling schmuck" as well as other players, which pretty much means no changes would ever be made. This benefits bumbling schmucks at the expense of skillful players, with whom they are in competition. If, for example, as a courier-contracting freighter pilot, I can evade Uedama/Niarja gate camps, I can accept and run more contracts more quickly than a bumbling schmuck, who will be deterred by (or blown up in) those instances. Raising the level of safety (by increasing the maximum DPS threshold, and therefore, the minimum viable return) means there are more camps the bumbling schmuck will bumble through safely. This effectively reduces the benefit of skillful play. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16271	Posted - 2016.02.15 17:55:07 - [867] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: This effectively reduces the benefit of skillful play. Effectively nothing. It's outright. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 67	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:04:17 - [868] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. There is nothing clever about bringing more people. Over 500k EHP for a simple bulkheaded obelisk is unacceptable. There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. This is just a ganker alt crying because he doesn't like that he may have to work harder for his food. Overall too...don't forget. EVE is a game. Your part of the game is not the only part that matters. It is already "second life" to do the boring work in EVE so that we ALL (gankers and just PVPers) can enjoy gud fights and pew pew. I don't see these 33% base hull stats as ANY SORT OF PROBLEM! POINT BLANK: These changes are good for many reasons. It makes ALL fights last a little longer! (What do I mean by that?) It will make the most enjoyable (pulse pounding) part of the game last longer for ALL SHIPS. This won't hurt the meta. This won't change battle dynamics in time enough to matter. IT WILL however make the pulse pounding part of fights/the strategy implemented, the surprise awe of a gank and dread, all last just a tad longer and that is a good thing, I don't care how dumb you are if you can't see it. Second, it was lore breaking and always struck me as weird to never have some sort of base resist on hulls. 33% across the board just makes sense to a piece of metal. Further thoughts - What I would like to see come out of this is the consideration (which CCP Fozzie et al are probably already doing) of looking at Bastion modules/ships and maybe some further discussion in this thread would be VERY welcome by all about hull repping meta!
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:07:36 - [869] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder. That isn't balance. Which is exactly why so many carebears are defending it, because they hate game balance. Game balance would actually be bad, sloppy, lazy play being appropriately punished with death. And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 399	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:14:32 - [870] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Second, it was lore breaking and always struck me as weird to never have some sort of base resist on hulls. 33% across the board just makes sense to a piece of metal. Let me fix that for you: all resists and dps numbers are measured relative to hull.

Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3096	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:15:55 - [871] - Quote tasman devil wrote: hmm this one I can approve (also: gankers got ganked here and crying like victims ... [oh the irony!]) much salt very tears such lols Not just gankers, but freighter pilots who aren't dumb and lazy are losing out with this change. That seems to be going over the heads of most bears though. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 42	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:17:04 - [872] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance. Foaming at the mouth and thinking your opinion of other players matters... How precious. Go on, more, let's see if you can dig yourself even deeper into your little hole.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 67	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:21:09 - [873] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Maybe burn jita should be brought forward. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Ignorant comment RABBLE
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 67	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:22:10 - [874] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Easily acceptable changes. Everyone all around gets buffed, and some of my fits have to be tweaked harder on my Alt to kill in Hi-sec. Let em cry Fozzie, this games always been adapt or die. Even with an increase of cost per freighter gank profit margins will still be high as long as you pick the right targets. As of current meta, Kill em all and laugh to the bank. I do so love how the other gankers.. I mean "low risk Pirates", are all crying over this change. Well said String p.s. o7
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:23:22 - [875] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: POINT BLANK: IF you guys are so fricken cool, and so organized, and adding so much to the game, then why not go take your shinnanigans to fricken low sec or (heaven forbid) NULL (not just NPC but Alliance space!)??? For someone claiming you've read a lot about CODE, you weren't really paying attention. They're in highsec because otherwise risk would be nonexistent for miners and haulers. Now, I know you're an entitled sow who thinks you're special and should be able to pretend like other people don't exist, but that isn't the reality of it. Quote: MOVE ON. You lost. Get over it. EVE lost, not us. We've been winning for going on two years now. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 67	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:24:03 - [876] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder. That isn't balance. Which is exactly why so many carebears are defending it, because they hate game balance. Game balance would actually be bad, sloppy, lazy play being appropriately punished with death. And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance. See my Above post as to why carebears are part of the game and necessary. We all start out that way.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:27:04 - [877] - Quote Oh, and seeing someone in the Incursion alliance crying about hurting new players is delightful. You bloated farmers have done more to hurt newbies in this game than every ganker, awoxer and wardeccer in EVE combined(especially since we actually help new players, compared to your bigoted elitism). Your sickening suckling on the most broken mechanic in EVE Online has inflated the game's income generation to such a degree that the income sources available to new players are utterly inadequate to sustain actually playing the game. Driving people into more banal, pointless farming instead of actually being able to play the game, and continuing the toxic cycle. You and yours should have been deleted years ago. You richly deserve it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:27:49 - [878] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder. That isn't balance. Which is exactly why so many carebears are defending it, because they hate game balance. Game balance would actually be bad, sloppy, lazy play being appropriately punished with death. And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance. See my Above post as to why carebears are part of the game and necessary. We all start out that way. Anyone who starts out as an entitled, whiny, selfish little prick isn't useful to any game. You're just parasites. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 68	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:30:22 - [879] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: POINT BLANK: IF you guys are so fricken cool, and so organized, and adding so much to the game, then why not go take your shinnanigans to fricken low sec or (heaven forbid) NULL (not just NPC but Alliance space!)??? For someone claiming you've read a lot about CODE, you weren't really paying attention. They're in highsec because otherwise risk would be nonexistent for miners and haulers. Now, I know you're an entitled sow who thinks you're special and should be able to pretend like other people don't exist, but that isn't the reality of it. Quote: MOVE ON. You lost. Get over it. EVE lost, not us. We've been winning for going on two years now. You mean the LOW profit mining and low profit hauling??? The real profit is in null and low. and...if there is a profit problem then that has nothing to do with Damage Control changes or EHP, but again, the free isk printed in hi-sec should be lowered. You miss my whole part about hi-sec being a starting ground. Ok - I see your point it is a safe haven for goods from null/low ONCE it gets here. But what you miss is that CCP is adding risk vs reward by drawing players out to null, Low, and Wormholes. THEY HAVE THE STATISTICS. They know the level of ISK that is printed in high. They are okay with it and tweak it. They are also obviously okay with people moving their well earned loot easier in hi-sec. All this CODE griefer crying bull$hit does nothing to advance this thread. You can call me a SOW or whatever immature name you want to use. Sticks and stones...but you are not adding to the conversation or discussing fittings, the meta, and other aspects. CCP (Fozzie et al) has spoken. They know the balance of the wolves versus the prey that they want. QUIT CRYING and name calling and get over it!!
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1946	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:30:48 - [880] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: See my Above post as to why carebears are part of the game and necessary. We all start out that way. I don't think you understand what is meant by "carebears". It really does not mean "Players who do non-PvP things". "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 68	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:31:32 - [881] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: There is nothing WRONG with that EHP. Like Fozzie said, the balance has to be maintained. Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder. That isn't balance. Which is exactly why so many carebears are defending it, because they hate game balance. Game balance would actually be bad, sloppy, lazy play being appropriately punished with death. And since carebears are not real players and therefore all they are capable of is bad, sloppy, lazy play, they despise game balance. See my Above post as to why carebears are part of the game and necessary. We all start out that way. Anyone who starts out as an entitled, whiny, selfish little prick isn't useful to any game. You're just parasites. More name calling huh? Really intelligent. I have been playing EVE for 8 years. I have forgotten and read more than you will ever know. Move on. ISD?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:32:49 - [882] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: You mean the LOW profit mining and low profit hauling??? I find it hard to believe that hauling is low profit, considering how often people fly through Uedama afk with more than a billion isk in their cargo hold. Clearly it's plenty profitable. Quote: The real profit is in null and low. Says the incursion farmer. Smokescreen harder. Quote: You miss my whole part about hi-sec being a starting ground. And you miss the point of EVE Online. The "starting ground" is a dozen odd systems. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 68	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:33:15 - [883] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: See my Above post as to why carebears are part of the game and necessary. We all start out that way. I don't think you understand what is meant by "carebears". It really does not mean "Players who do non-PvP things". You are splitting hairs. All that sort of low-risk (low reward) drudgery is NECESSARY to move goods and keep EVE a vibrant economy. It should never be eliminated just balanced like CCP is saying. Care Bears, newbs, Hi-sec people who just like to play a "simple" version of EVE and not venture into low or null...All this is necessary as first steps and long term to the game.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 42	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:33:28 - [884] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Anyone who starts out as an entitled, whiny, selfish little prick isn't useful to any game. You're just parasites. Writes a ganker. A ganker of all people. Kid, you make me laugh so hard. Ok, ISD or whoever is on janitor duty, please remove all our posts, because I know they don't further the discussion about the proposed changes, but I am sorry, I simply cannot stop laughing.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 937	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:33:55 - [885] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: You mean the LOW profit mining and low profit hauling??? The real profit is in null and low. and...if there is a profit problem then that has nothing to do with Damage Control changes or EHP, but again, the free isk printed in hi-sec should be lowered. You miss my whole part about hi-sec being a starting ground. Ok - I see your point it is a safe haven for goods from null/low ONCE it gets here. But what you miss is that CCP is adding risk vs reward by drawing players out to null, Low, and Wormholes. THEY HAVE THE STATISTICS. They know the level of ISK that is printed in high. They are okay with it and tweak it. They are also obviously okay with people moving their well earned loot easier in hi-sec. All this CODE griefer crying bull$hit does nothing to advance this thread. You can call me a SOW or whatever immature name you want to use. Sticks and stones...but you are not adding to the conversation or discussing fittings, the meta, and other aspects. CCP (Fozzie et al) has spoken. They know the balance of the wolves versus the prey that they want. QUIT CRYING and name calling and get over it!! How low profit do you suppose it would be if there was no risk and everyone autopiloted 10 max cargo expanded freighters. We make good haulers stand out. You are the one that is name calling here by the way. And just so you know 70% or so of players are in highsec, so if highsec is new players sec then 70% of eve players are supposed to be new players, that's good math. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:34:00 - [886] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: I have been playing EVE for 8 years. Mine would be ten, but I won't be renewing my sub before May. Try again, carebear. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 51	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:35:30 - [887] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: Quote: 2/ if i already have a dcu fitted before the change, no change ... for me ... but all my targets with no dcu will now earn a +33% hull hp ... so who got a nerf? WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO BAD AT MATH. 33% resists is 50% more ehp because you deal 66% damage that you did before. I will make this really simple. Ship A has 1000 hp 0% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 100 dps, take 10 seconds to kill. Ship B has 1000 hp 33% resist, attacker has 100 dps and applies 67 dps, takes 15 seconds to kill. It is 50% buff, this isn't rocket science. It would be but we drive space submarines. Correct, however EHP from hull is not the only source of EHP a ship has. Something like a double nano slicer will gain 240 EHP, which is less than a 10% gain. There's been a great deal of mischaracterization in this thread and so far every time I've pointed it out, I've been ignored.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:43:10 - [888] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: You are splitting hairs. All that sort of low-risk (low reward) drudgery is NECESSARY to move goods and keep EVE a vibrant economy. And yet the game's economy was in a much better place, with the relative earning and purchasing power of new players several times higher... When the game was vastly more dangerous than it is right now. Safety kills newbie subs. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1039	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:53:16 - [889] - Quote I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. I pity those capitol ship producers who will have to take a price cut when the supply/demand causes Freighter prices to drop. They are the real victims here.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 43	Posted - 2016.02.15 18:57:06 - [890] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Someone who actually plays the game and interacts with other players, someone who creates content. You mean someone like me and my friends, who build many of the ships we fly (hence the industrialist and hauling activities), live in W-space, hunt there and in nullsec/lowsec, fighting people who can actually fight back, often outnumbered and outgunned and having a blast doing it? Or do you mean kids bragging about "creating content" by shooting defenseless freighters in highsec? And even if somebody wants to play EVE as pure industrialists like some of our older members, or heck, even as Farmville in Space, your opinion of them still does not matter. Their game, their choice. They don't need gankers, but gankers need them. End of story.

Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 68	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:02:29 - [891] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Someone who actually plays the game and interacts with other players, someone who creates content. You mean someone like me and my friends, who build many of the ships we fly (hence the industrialist and hauling activities), live in W-space, hunt there and in nullsec/lowsec, fighting people who can actually fight back, often outnumbered and outgunned and having a blast doing it? Or do you mean kids bragging about "creating content" by shooting defenseless freighters in highsec? And even if somebody wants to play EVE as pure industrialists like some of our older members, or heck, even as Farmville in Space, your opinion of them still does not matter. Their game, their choice. They don't need gankers, but gankers need them. End of story. Thank you. EVE has something for everyone. And the risk of moving stuff is not entirely averted as the rage posting name-caller above would have readers believe. In Reply to that person more specifically...EVE CAN and should have solo safe activities! (shock I know!) They just shouldn't be hugely lucrative in hi-sec. Which they aren't. Moving goods and mining in hi-sec are just the examples of stuff that gets special treatment because it is necessary for the economy. Again, I know CCP has these numbers and they are making this balance with all that in mind as history has shown. Can we all please now move forward to other scenarios (or at least talk more numbers) so as to aid the Dev's in their search for outside lying cases they may have missed or scenarios that might have gone under their radar????
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 51	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:06:30 - [892] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: FT Cold wrote: Correct, however EHP from hull is not the only source of EHP a ship has. Something like a double nano slicer will gain 240 EHP, which is less than a 10% gain. There's been a great deal of mischaracterization in this thread and so far every time I've pointed it out, I've been ignored. 90% of the discussion in this thread is centered around triple bulkhead anshars and obelisks which get 90% of their ehp from hull and can't fit DCU so 50% ehp increase is fairly accurate. The argument between the gankers and the anti-gankers is something that I'm indifferent towards, but people need to be careful playing number games like above and then making blanket statements afterwards. Doing a little math, with concord pre pulled in a .5 system, I was able to determine that in rough numbers, for a fully tanked max skill obelisk the number of reasonably well skilled catalysts is going to go from 22 to 30. That is a fairly substantial increase, but conversely, if we look at a bulkhead fit obelisk, the number will increase from about 10 to 12. It just depends on the context of the situation you desire to analyze. I'm far more interested in how this change is going to affect PVP between non industrial ships and I recognize that people might have different concerns about the evolution in gameplay a change like this will cause. Despite that, I'm a little upset that people on both sides of the industrial discussion make unqualified statements that detract from the rest of the discussion.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:07:42 - [893] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. I pity those capitol ship producers who will have to take a price cut when the supply/demand causes Freighter prices to drop. They are the real victims here. Only regular freighter prices and capital ship prices should drop by your logic. Good point. However, I doubt it will be a lot. Maybe 10% is my guess. If it is more, so be it. I don't see a problem with this. Freighters prices are already much higher than they have traditionally been. Cap ship prices should come down imho as carriers, FAX's, and Dreads will see much more action (loss?) with the cap ship changes coming. Overall your point is a good point (not a bad one as you paint it) because the cost of replacement for those cap ships will need to come down to compensate for the losses on the battlefield. As more players move into cap ships also with the Skill Injector changes and as EVE ages this will be good too. Cap ships are their own developing class of ships with infighting now and this will bring some neat cap ship battles which is again, good for the game and EVE and players. More variety is better. More gud fights are better.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 399	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:08:06 - [894] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. There's only one higher dps fit we are not already using, and that's because it's a 300M battleship fit (and being a battleship already means it hasn't really got the required agility for -10 pilots) that requires the relevant battleship V and will cost a lot more than 300M if we actually start using them because it's a polarized fit.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:08:11 - [895] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: That would suggest however that you believe changes should never be made if they will benefit a "bumbling schmuck" as well as other players, which pretty much means no changes would ever be made. This benefits bumbling schmucks at the expense of skillful players, with whom they are in competition. If, for example, as a courier-contracting freighter pilot, I can evade Uedama/Niarja gate camps, I can accept and run more contracts more quickly than a bumbling schmuck, who will be deterred by (or blown up in) those camps. Raising the level of safety (by increasing the minimum DPS threshold, and therefore, the minimum viable return) means there are more camps the bumbling schmuck will bumble through safely. This effectively reduces the benefit of skillful play. Except his EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he gets through a highsec gatecamp. The least skilled pilots are the ones targetted now, and with a global increase they will still be the lowest relative to other freighter pilots and thus stil the main targets. The only thing it changes is how many F1 pressing gank ships it takes to kill that pilot. You'll still be a better rewarded freighter pilot by playing it smart, (though to be quite honest it would be smarter to simply not be a freighter pilot and do any one of the 100 other activities that gain more isk in less time). The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:09:48 - [896] - Quote Ylmar wrote: [They don't need gankers, but gankers need them. End of story. Wrong as always. Since they have zero risk in their gameplay, they would never die in highsec without us. Industry players make a tidy profit off of catalyst hulls, T2 blasters, and freighters/parts from us. It's only the entitled and the lazy who have a problem with us. Which are you? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1948	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:13:39 - [897] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Except his EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he gets through a highsec gatecamp. It affects... A: Whether or not a camp of sufficient size will exist at all. B: Whether any given target is actually viable. The bumbling fuckwit may still be on the bottom of the food chain, but the expected cost to him for being incompetent is reduced. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:14:37 - [898] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ylmar wrote: [They don't need gankers, but gankers need them. End of story. Wrong as always. Since they have zero risk in their gameplay, they would never die in highsec without us. Industry players make a tidy profit off of catalyst hulls, T2 blasters, and freighters/parts from us. It's only the entitled and the lazy who have a problem with us. Which are you? I tell ya what Kaarous! Look at this change this way sir. Instead of the glass half-empty....it is half-full. Now that EHP has been buffed on freighters and JF's especially, don't you think this will increase the payout on the ganks? Especially with the wreck changes? In otherwords, the old equation for carrying only 1billion in a freighter will go to 1.5billion say.... So yeah, you have to bring more guys, but the payout is still the same! Here you are complaining there should be no safe solo play, but you are arguing for the need for LESS people to gank? You just want to be able to have your way easy like you accuse others of. So you are the care bear. Not to tear you down...I just want to again reiterate, when you do get the 30 guys together, the explosion is going to be that much more glorious as the freighter pilot will be carrying that much more isk value loot. :) It is all balanced. CCP has this under control sir.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 44	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:17:13 - [899] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Wrong as always. Like I said, keep digging and keep talking. We're having an excellent time following this thread and joking about it in team chat.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3096	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:18:44 - [900] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. I pity those capitol ship producers who will have to take a price cut when the supply/demand causes Freighter prices to drop. They are the real victims here. Only regular freighter prices and capital ship prices should drop by your logic. Good point. However, I doubt it will be a lot. Maybe 10% is my guess. If it is more, so be it. I don't see a problem with this. Freighters prices are already much higher than they have traditionally been. Cap ship prices should come down imho as carriers, FAX's, and Dreads will see much more action (loss?) with the cap ship changes coming. Overall your point is a good point (not a bad one as you paint it) because the cost of replacement for those cap ships will need to come down to compensate for the losses on the battlefield. As more players move into cap ships also with the Skill Injector changes and as EVE ages this will be good too. Cap ships are their own developing class of ships with infighting now and this will bring some neat cap ship battles which is again, good for the game and EVE and players. More variety is better. More gud fights are better. You should look at the margin on freighters. Their price increase was from minerals. Why should good haulers and other industrialists like myself lose out at all? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:23:30 - [901] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. I pity those capitol ship producers who will have to take a price cut when the supply/demand causes Freighter prices to drop. They are the real victims here. Only regular freighter prices and capital ship prices should drop by your logic. Good point. However, I doubt it will be a lot. Maybe 10% is my guess. If it is more, so be it. I don't see a problem with this. Freighters prices are already much higher than they have traditionally been. Cap ship prices should come down imho as carriers, FAX's, and Dreads will see much more action (loss?) with the cap ship changes coming. Overall your point is a good point (not a bad one as you paint it) because the cost of replacement for those cap ships will need to come down to compensate for the losses on the battlefield. As more players move into cap ships also with the Skill Injector changes and as EVE ages this will be good too. Cap ships are their own developing class of ships with infighting now and this will bring some neat cap ship battles which is again, good for the game and EVE and players. More variety is better. More gud fights are better. You should look at the margin on freighters. Their price increase was from minerals. Why should good haulers and other industrialists like myself lose out at all? Yeah, I thought someone might say that. However, as was mentioned before though. As mineral moving and hisec mining becomes a tad safer, this will directly effect the prices you are referring to as those mineral prices drop. So it is a neutral sum and the point you made will probably be invalidated. Let me state for the record though, I am not saying you should have a smaller profit margin than what is traditionally been given on freighter/cap ship building. Plus, again, cap ships will probably be dying more with the Cap ship changes so there is room to make profit there. Just that prices on cap ships like freighters and cap ships will drop probably a tad with these changes may be a valid point.
HeXxploiT Little Red X 219	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:24:36 - [902] - Quote Got your work cut out for ya with this module alone Fozzie. This change will really shake things up. Should be very fun.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:32:09 - [903] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Look at this change this way sir. Instead of the glass half-empty....it is half-full. The glass is half full for me. They've made it clear that they don't want my business. That frees up enough money for me to buy The Division in a few weeks. The beta was really fun, like I haven't seen in a shooter since Gears of War. Quote: Now that EHP has been buffed on freighters and JF's especially, don't you think this will increase the payout on the ganks? No, because I can actually do basic math. Slightly increased likelihood of getting the loot with an AG moron in the system does not offset a 50% increase in overhead operating costs. As such, our target range has shrunk by as much as 80% if we are interested in a profit. This of course incentivizes people like CODE or possibly the Russians who will gank anything in the freighter class for lulz, because they get their funding elsewhere. If you can't make a profit, might as well cause a scene. And of course the larger proportion of empty freighters being ganked will be seen as evidence by carebears like you that ganking needs to be nerfed once again. When the root of the problem is and always has been the unreasonable restrictions and punitive mechanics you want placed against people rather than you just learning to play the game correctly. Quote: It is all balanced. It's not. If you don't know that you're a moron, and if you're not a moron you're a liar. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:33:53 - [904] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Except that isn't balance. It's just straight up making ganking 50% harder. No, it's not... Kaarous Aldurald wrote: They're in highsec because otherwise risk would be nonexistent for miners and haulers. They're in highsec for the same reason miners and haulers are, to reduce how much effort they have to put into playing. James may have started it out as his tantrum against mining barge changes in highsec but most code members are there because it's easy. This is evident from the fact that it's safer and more rewarding to mine in nullsec, yet code don't generally operate there. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I find it hard to believe that hauling is low profit, considering how often people fly through Uedama afk with more than a billion isk in their cargo hold. I can almost guarantee that most of that value was not created through hauling. I'd not haul because it would cost me more to lose a single pilot to slowboating a freighter than I can simply pay someone else to haul, let alone guarding the damn thing. Honestly, I don't know why they do it. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And yet the game's economy was in a much better place, with the relative earning and purchasing power of new players several times higher... When the game was vastly more dangerous than it is right now. Safety kills newbie subs. To be fair, income streams have nothing to do with hauling. I made a couple of years worth of PLEX on Saturday alone (yes, actual profit) without undocking and without hauling or having anything hauled. If anything needs to have more risk or reduced reward it's trading. Newbies probably wouldn't have such a problem with the economy though if they didn't lose their ships when they got to a certain size purely through not quite understanding the aggression mechanics. I'll never lose a (non-gank) ship in highsec - that's right, I'm saying it - so I'll never need to worry about such things, newbies will. How's that balanced? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:38:20 - [905] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: It affects... A: Whether or not a camp of sufficient size will exist at all. B: Whether any given target is actually viable. The bumbling fuckwit may still be on the bottom of the food chain, but the expected cost to him for being incompetent is reduced. A camp of sufficient size is one single player. It is now, it will be then. All targets are viable, there's no such thing as an ungankable freighter now and there won't be after. At most, gankers will need to add a bit more DPS, which they can do either by adding more F1 monkeys or by taking a second run. Considering during Burn Amarr/Jita, many of the gankers were smashing with huge amounts of overkill and leaving people behind saying "hey I wanted to gank too..." because of the sheer numbers of pilots they had available, I can't imagine they'll have a problem. Consider it this way, this change will encourage people to recruit more gankers. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:46:54 - [906] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Look at this change this way sir. Instead of the glass half-empty....it is half-full. The glass is half full for me. They've made it clear that they don't want my business. That frees up enough money for me to buy The Division in a few weeks. The beta was really fun, like I haven't seen in a shooter since Gears of War. Quote: Now that EHP has been buffed on freighters and JF's especially, don't you think this will increase the payout on the ganks? No, because I can actually do basic math. Slightly increased likelihood of getting the loot with an AG moron in the system does not offset a 50% increase in overhead operating costs. As such, our target range has shrunk by as much as 80% if we are interested in a profit. This of course incentivizes people like CODE or possibly the Russians who will gank anything in the freighter class for lulz, because they get their funding elsewhere. If you can't make a profit, might as well cause a scene. And of course the larger proportion of empty freighters being ganked will be seen as evidence by carebears like you that ganking needs to be nerfed once again. When the root of the problem is and always has been the unreasonable restrictions and punitive mechanics you want placed against people rather than you just learning to play the game correctly. Quote: It is all balanced. It's not. If you don't know that you're a moron, and if you're not a moron you're a liar. Keep on calling names. You missed completely (purposefully is my guess) my point about haulers carrying more directly correlating to their increase in EHP. Also - What is this 50% you keep quoting?!?! You can rage, show the math. Someone else did and it was like 8 more ships at most over the 22 normal worst case. So that is no 50%. And if by 50% you mean you have to get more people to do it and that is your 50% then.... I have no sympathy. Again it would be 8 more pilots or like 35%. If you want the higher end benefits of an MMORPG, it is always they rule you have to gather more people to do so. For you to complain about this (and I notice your tears and rage did not include anything to my response earlier about you wanting it to be smaller groups yet accusing us of being the care bears) then grow some leadership ballz and make it happen....but I don't think you will do that with your immature attitude you have shown here. 10 year player my butt. How old are you? Go play that other game you are talking about. You will be back. EVE is the best MMORPG for a reason. This change is nothing in the grand scheme and it is why people have been playing for 8 or 10 years. (Although if you are willing to give up on your 10 years of game time and yet you care so much I highly doubt you really have that or that it was continuous play.)
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3097	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:47:50 - [907] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: I guess gankers will just have to come up with more bros and higher DPS fits. I pity those capitol ship producers who will have to take a price cut when the supply/demand causes Freighter prices to drop. They are the real victims here. Only regular freighter prices and capital ship prices should drop by your logic. Good point. However, I doubt it will be a lot. Maybe 10% is my guess. If it is more, so be it. I don't see a problem with this. Freighters prices are already much higher than they have traditionally been. Cap ship prices should come down imho as carriers, FAX's, and Dreads will see much more action (loss?) with the cap ship changes coming. Overall your point is a good point (not a bad one as you paint it) because the cost of replacement for those cap ships will need to come down to compensate for the losses on the battlefield. As more players move into cap ships also with the Skill Injector changes and as EVE ages this will be good too. Cap ships are their own developing class of ships with infighting now and this will bring some neat cap ship battles which is again, good for the game and EVE and players. More variety is better. More gud fights are better. You should look at the margin on freighters. Their price increase was from minerals. Why should good haulers and other industrialists like myself lose out at all? Yeah, I thought someone might say that. However, as was mentioned before though. As mineral moving and hisec mining becomes a tad safer, this will directly effect the prices you are referring to as those mineral prices drop. So it is a neutral sum and the point you made will probably be invalidated. Let me state for the record though, I am not saying you should have a smaller profit margin than what is traditionally been given on freighter/cap ship building. Plus, again, cap ships will probably be dying more with the Cap ship changes so there is room to make profit there. Just that prices on cap ships like freighters and cap ships will drop probably a tad with these changes may be a valid point. wow you really have no clue. Not only will freighter prices drop from lower demand, but if mineral prices also drop, freighter prices will suffer again because their mineral cost is the only thing keeping them up at this point. You just said yourself, they used to be cheaper. You have to bulk build them at a POS to get any decent margin out of them. And seeing as the people making freighters in hi-sec are not the same people making carriers and dreads in low sec, then no, there wont be room to make profit there, its a very different industry. There was plenty of ways already to haul and mine very safely and earn isk. Making the game even safer than now chips away at the margins of industrialists and overwhelmingly favours the dumb and lazy. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:57:42 - [908] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Also - What is this 50% you keep quoting?!?! Can you just not read? I already know you're innumerate, but are you illiterate as well? It's been posted by several people throughout the thread, even on the last page for Christ's sake. Quote: Go play that other game you are talking about. You will be back. The Division, Massive's new multiplayer TPS/RPG. And no, I won't. EVE was the best MMORPG for a reason. And that reason was player freedom. But now, CCP has decided that deliberately playing the game wrong should be enormously buffed, and that player freedom should be chopped off at the knees for the sake of catering to theoretical casual players. (none of whom have stayed in this game despite years of nerfs, I might add) So now that player freedom isn't something to be lauded, but actively punished, I simply won't participate any longer. They've demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they no longer value me as a player, since they are insistent on nerfing my playstyle out of existence, so they won't have me as a customer either. It's a simple value judgment. Quote: Although if you are willing to give up on your 10 years of game time and yet you care so much I highly doubt you really have that or that it was continuous play Try your ad homs somewhere else, you revolting carebear. It's precisely because I've played so long that it disgusts me what this game has become. The company whose motto was "harden the **** up" falling over themselves to buff lazy, sloppy play. Anyone who isn't quitting by now doesn't care enough. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 399	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:57:49 - [909] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: They're in highsec because otherwise risk would be nonexistent for miners and haulers. They're in highsec for the same reason miners and haulers are, to reduce how much effort they have to put into playing. James may have started it out as his tantrum against mining barge changes in highsec but most code members are there because it's easy. This is evident from the fact that it's safer and more rewarding to mine in nullsec, yet code don't generally operate there. It's easy but very boring to disrupt nullsec operations: you go there and everyone docks because they're too risk averse to undock with a neutral in local, then you stay there and they stay docked.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:59:05 - [910] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: wow you really have no clue. Not only will freighter prices drop from lower demand, but if mineral prices also drop, freighter prices will suffer again because their mineral cost is the only thing keeping them up at this point. You just said yourself, they used to be cheaper. You have to bulk build them at a POS to get any decent margin out of them. And seeing as the people making freighters in hi-sec are not the same people making carriers and dreads in low sec, then no, there wont be room to make profit there, its a very different industry. There was plenty of ways already to haul and mine very safely and earn isk. Making the game even safer than now chips away at the margins of industrialists and overwhelmingly favours the dumb and lazy. If mineral prices drop your costs to BUILD drop. How is that not proven? Then, and IF it happens, the volume demand for freighters drops (which I think it will about 10+%) prices will fall but your cost to build will have too. So yeah, you will have to bulk build to get profit, I get that. But that is always how freighters were. Look at it this way too. Maybe demand will go up because freighters are safer. As more people start hauling again because they don't worry about gankers! Ever think of that one? You say it favors the dumb and lazy. I say it favors the players looking to branch out (cheaper ship prices and price of entry) and helps the economy as goods get moved more. Places like Derelik may see goods moved out there as people can move them a tad safer from Jita etc. Demand goes up. You are completely neglecting that possibility. Plus too...whine more. Diversify! Make cap ships. Sell your BPOs and build something else. I have had to change my industry tactics before. I didn't cry and whine all over the EVE-O Forums. Adapt. I get what you are saying although I think you are focusing on one tiny segment that MAY drop. Change your play. Move to null. Make even more profit and (heaven forbid) friends there. Build freighters there for more profit margin (because the minerals are amazing and the stations have lower costs) and then import with FRIENDS helping you move them. Quit solo playing at a POS in hi-sec. CCP made all these industry building changes months ago to move people out of hi-sec on purpose so that it WAS hard to make a profit building there. Again, hi-sec mining and moving have nothing to do with your desire for completely safe and cheap profit margins in hi-sec freighter building. Build them in null or low and quit crying as I just gave you your solution.

Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 69	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:03:12 - [911] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: A bunch of selected lines pulled and completely ignored my whole argument. A bunch of whiny stuff about how CCP used to be tough and make people adapt. Go adapt yourself! If that means going and playing this other MMORPG...Fine. CRY more. TBH, I am so full on your tears I couldn't want any for another year. Can I have your stuff!? haha I am done responding to you. Off to go laugh with my friends about your diaper training.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:09:40 - [912] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Go adapt yourself! I am. I won't pay them to nerf me out of existence anymore. Like I said before, it's a simple value judgment. Mischaracterize, rant and lie all you like, that doesn't change the truth. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 44	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:19:21 - [913] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So now that player freedom isn't something to be lauded, but actively punished, I simply won't participate any longer. They've demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they no longer value me as a player, since they are insistent on nerfing my playstyle out of existence, so they won't have me as a customer either. Alright, let's finalize this. CCP, if you are reading this: I have just set aside a stack of 12 PLEX, and as soon as you guys show to me that the account holding the above character is deleted and that Kaarous Aldurald and all other characters tied to this account have been irretrievably biomassed, I will use these 12 PLEX to create a brand new account and pay for a year's worth of subscription. I have enough alts, but this is so worth it.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3098	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:27:46 - [914] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: If mineral prices drop your costs to BUILD drop. How is that not proven? Then, and IF it happens, the volume demand for freighters drops (which I think it will about 10+%) prices will fall but your cost to build will have too. So yeah, you will have to bulk build to get profit, I get that. But that is always how freighters were. Look at it this way too. Maybe demand will go up because freighters are safer. As more people start hauling again because they don't worry about gankers! Ever think of that one? Right, because hauling is so dangerous now that few people do it...oh wait. Hundreds if not thousands of freighters are passing through just one system each day and they are so terrified by the risks that the majority of them are on auto-pilot . Without more demand (which their wont be), the price of freighters will come down pretty much proportionally with mineral prices. In layman's terms, my costs goes down, but my revenue comes down just as much and my profits don't do **. With less demand (which their could be), the price of freighters will come down, but my costs stay the same and my profits fall. Ms Michigan wrote: You say it favors the dumb and lazy. I say it favors the players looking to branch out (cheaper ship prices and price of entry) and helps the economy as goods get moved more. Places like Derelik may see goods moved out there as people can move them a tad safer from Jita etc. Demand goes up. You are completely neglecting that possibility. If mineral prices drop, miners get paid less, not more. If demand drops, ship builders get paid less, not more. Who benefits from cheaper ships? oh yeah mission runners...the least attacked player base in the game \o/. Ms Michigan wrote:** Diversify! Make cap ships. Sell your BPOs and build something else. I have had to change my industry tactics before. I didn't cry and whine all over the EVE-O Forums. Adapt. I get what you are saying although I think you are focusing on one tiny segment that MAY drop. Change your play. Move to null. Make even more profit and (heaven forbid) friends there. Build freighters there for more profit margin (because the minerals are amazing and the stations have lower costs) and then import with FRIENDS helping you move them. Quit solo playing at a POS in hi-sec. CCP made all these industry building changes months ago to move people out of hi-sec on purpose so that it WAS hard to make a profit building there. Again, hi-sec mining and moving have nothing to do with your desire for completely safe and cheap profit margins in hi-sec freighter building. Build them in null or low and quit crying as I just gave you your solution. Lol, he says knowing nothing about me or the groups i'm with. The irony of saying im the one seeking complete safety and should quit trying to play solo after you said EVE should have solo safe activities. I'm aware i can adapt. We all know it wouldn't be the first time. Ive accepted CCP want to make this change, but that doesn't mean i have to let you spout total BS. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 70	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:40:02 - [915] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Lol, he says knowing nothing about me or the groups i'm with. The irony of saying im the one seeking complete safety and should quit trying to play solo after you said EVE should have solo safe activities. I'm aware i can adapt. We all know it wouldn't be the first time. Ive accepted CCP want to make this change, but that doesn't mean i have to let you spout total BS. I said solo play referring to newbs. You are obviously not a newb my point!! Plus you never even addressed the fact that I called you out on your lack of proof for how you work in null or low. Instead I referenced your point about working solo at a pos in hi-sec churning out freighters. As to your point about freighters being in the thousands...great. There are that many people doing it. Who is to say (CCP does) without numbers what is healthy and what is not; you say it like it is a bad thing. Maybe it is low. Where is your data on the backend servers to prove your point. Again, CCP has said this is a balance between the wolves and prey. Your point about building might be an unintended consequence. Why can't we just talk about the outliers and theory craft instead of everyone here having to scream about how upset they are and how hard CCP is butt-hurting them. I get it, I used to do the same thing. But that is not what these forums are for. ISD's delete pages of this sort of banter especially when it turns to name calling and has no substance because the DEVs want to get people's thoughts about the changes...not their tears and hearsay. Ms Mich P.S. Ylmar - LOL Nice. I will match you and donate 12 plex to the next donation drive is Kaarous and his alts unsub. :)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 20:43:58 - [916] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: Again, CCP has said this is a balance between the wolves and prey. And that's exactly the problem here. That they have completely thrown away the concept of player freedom in highsec. Quote: Why can't we just talk about the outliers and theory craft Because you don't get to dictate what other people find noteworthy about the changes made in the thread? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 337	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:05:52 - [917] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Go adapt yourself! I am. I won't pay them to nerf me out of existence anymore. Like I said before, it's a simple value judgment. Mischaracterize, rant and lie all you like, that doesn't change the truth. You heard it guys, he outright refuses to adapt himself. It is his Constitutional right or something to be able to gank the way he's used to! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:11:34 - [918] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: You heard it guys, he outright refuses to adapt himself. It is his Constitutional right or something to be able to gank the way he's used to! Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Remember a few posts up when I was talking about mischaracterizations and lies? This guy is an excellent example. It is not that I refuse to adapt. However, I refuse to be told that I am the only one who should have to adapt. Carebears never have, and CCP seems determined to shut the servers down before that happens. I'm merely agreeing with them. They've said they don't want my business, and that's fine with me at this point. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3099	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:13:17 - [919] - Quote @ Ms Michigan I never said i work solo, or in low or null. I dont know what you're talking about in that regard. I said, you have to bulk build them from a POS to get any decent margin out of them and that the capital industry is in low/null. You've mistaken my replies to you as pleas to CCP to not go through with the change. I did that twenty or so pages ago. My replies to you were to debunk your posts and educate you. And of course ask why you think bad haulers should benefit at the expense of good haulers. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Rhamnousia Nosferatu TRAINSPOTTING 337	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:21:37 - [920] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: You heard it guys, he outright refuses to adapt himself. It is his Constitutional right or something to be able to gank the way he's used to! Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Remember a few posts up when I was talking about mischaracterizations and lies? This guy is an excellent example. It is not that I refuse to adapt. However, I refuse to be told that I am the only one who should have to adapt. Carebears never have, and CCP seems determined to shut the servers down before that happens. I'm merely agreeing with them. They've said they don't want my business, and that's fine with me at this point. Yes, you refuse to adapt since you're quitting. However, do know that I'm fully supportive of your righteous decision.

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16272	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:26:39 - [921] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Yes, you refuse to adapt since you're quitting. That is adapting to this change. To not adapt would be to keep on paying CCP to nerf me out of existence. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 357	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:44:47 - [922] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It is not that I refuse to adapt. However, I refuse to be told that I am the only one who should have to adapt. Carebears never have, and CCP seems determined to shut the servers down before that happens. I'm merely agreeing with them. They've said they don't want my business, and that's fine with me at this point. You do realise that high sec gankers are carebears right...... HS ganks barely cost you thing... after the loot drop and gank/ships to freighter fit maths has been done.. your concorded catalysts are the same as a lvl 4 mission runners missiles.. and your risk is practically zero just like a lvl 4 mission runner. Stop patting yourself on the back and thinking that cause u gank in high sec your a pvper... your not.. your a carebear. I see you joined the HS gankers cause you couldn't cut it in low sec or worm hole space against actual pvpers.. lol... your a carebear man.. its alright.. its ok to admit you fail at pvp and need to be spoonfed. "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1224	Posted - 2016.02.15 21:50:54 - [923] - Quote I'll be honest, if you can't see why this is unhealthy for the economy I really don't know what to tell you.
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1616	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:00:07 - [924] - Quote I have removed some off-topic, troll, and personal attack posts and those quoting them. Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times. The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Decoy Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 71	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:01:45 - [925] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Again, CCP has said this is a balance between the wolves and prey. And that's exactly the problem here. That they have completely thrown away the concept of player freedom in highsec. Quote: Why can't we just talk about the outliers and theory craft Because you don't get to dictate what other people find noteworthy about the changes made in the thread? [edit: Oh, and because that was all hashed out in the reddit thread about this a few hours after the change was posted, by people who can actually do basic math. I am taking what you are saying seriously...again, I just don't see it as an issue. For example, years ago (I mean like when I started playing and for years after) hi-sec ganking was just NEVER as big as it became the past few years. I am not using that as my sole basis, just an example to give you something else to consider. Not to mention back then, EVE's economy was very vibrant. There was a huge hi-sec contingent. I am also not some huge macro-economics major here. I tend to listen and consider (as much as I don't always like them) to people like Querns and the Economic gurus there who seem to be more overall EVE economy driven these days. I have not seen too much from them in here decrying the death of ganking. If I remember, they seemed to say the same I did for other reasons. I am not saying the argument isn't noteworthy either. I am just saying we have talked it to death. If you have more numbers from your reddit circle special, then please do post. We would all love some educated stuff then instead of "well this is the death of MY playstyle." hurf durf
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 357	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:03:14 - [926] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I'll be honest, if you can't see why this is unhealthy for the economy I really don't know what to tell you. More freightors make it to market = more supply to markets. More supply = cheaper ships. More freightors make to to market = greator profits for corps. If corps are pvp corps that SRP then corp can afford to replace members PvP losses. More corp funds = more content for members = members enjoy eve more and dont unsub. Sounds horrible. "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 104	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:05:56 - [927] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: However, I refuse to be told that I am the only one who should have to adapt. Carebears never have, and CCP seems determined to shut the servers down before that happens. 1. reduced yield to procurer and retriever 25% 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). 3. arbitrary scale back of ME and PE on BPO to 10 and 20% 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:10:01 - [928] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I'll be honest, if you can't see why this is unhealthy for the economy I really don't know what to tell you. It's not unhealthy for the economy. At the very worst prices will drop and a few people will move to something else and the prices will balance out once supply drops enough. Consider the battleship build prices changes change. This is nowhere close to as big an economic hitting change as that, and the economy survived. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1039	Posted - 2016.02.15 22:29:47 - [929] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: Again, CCP has said this is a balance between the wolves and prey. And that's exactly the problem here. That they have completely thrown away the concept of player freedom in highsec. Quote: Why can't we just talk about the outliers and theory craft Because you don't get to dictate what other people find noteworthy about the changes made in the thread? [edit: Oh, and because that was all hashed out in the reddit thread about this a few hours after the change was posted, by people who can actually do basic math. Hisec has never been about player freedom. Hisec has always had limits and those who know how to function inside those limits prosper in their activities. You want freedom, move to lowsec where the consequences are less (no Concord), or move to nullsec where there are no consequnces (no Concord and no hit to sec status) for your ganking activities. The only consequences in those areas come from other players and gate/station guns; as it should be.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16273	Posted - 2016.02.15 23:03:31 - [930] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: I am taking what you are saying seriously...again, I just don't see it as an issue. Of course you don't. I say this not to be insulting, but I don't view your side as being capable of intellectual honesty. Had CCP done something equally as punitive to say, mission runners, you would be up in arms. To put it succinctly, I think you are all hypocrites. Quote: For example, years ago (I mean like when I started playing and for years after) hi-sec ganking was just NEVER as big as it became the past few years. And you're wrong. Before the insurance nerf, for example, suicide ganking was far, far more prevalent. Anyone who ganked at the time will tell you the same thing. For crying out loud, you used to be able to gank in fully fit Battleships and turn a profit, something that is impossible today. Quote: If you have more numbers from your reddit circle special, then please do post. Why? I already told you where it is, go and find it yourself. You'll benefit far more from perusing it yourself than if I quote one individual section or other. Horse to water, I swear. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

Mag's Azn Empire 21304	Posted - 2016.02.15 23:08:19 - [931] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: Hisec has never been about player freedom. Hisec has always had limits and those who know how to function inside those limits prosper in their activities. You want freedom, move to lowsec where the consequences are less (no Concord), or move to nullsec where there are no consequnces (no Concord and no hit to sec status) for your ganking activities. The only consequences in those areas come from other players and gate/station guns; as it should be. Sorry but you are completely mistaken. The whole of Eve is about player freedom. The difference with highsec, is merely the punishment for certain actions. That doesn't mean the freedom isn't there. Oh and please stop with move to low and null line. As much as you want highsec to become perfectly safe, I hope it never does. I say hope because my faith in the devs excluding this change, has been massively reduced of late. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16273	Posted - 2016.02.15 23:08:44 - [932] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: Hisec has never been about player freedom. EVE Online itself was founded on player freedom. So you're full of it. Quote: You want freedom, move to lowsec . No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere. Not just isolated where it won't bother you. Or at least that was true. If CCP has forgotten the lessons of Ultima Online and is trying to chase purely theoretical casual players by slapping Trammel onto highsec, well... they'll see just how well that works eventually. I don't care either way, they'll already irrevocably alienated me, and I'll be taking my business elsewhere. I had a lot of subs seeing as I was a fairly prolific awoxer, two of which actively unsubbed the moment I read Fozzie's comment about this meaning nothing more than wildlife management to him(seriously, way to spit on your customers bro), and the others will not be plexing their accounts this month. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3100	Posted - 2016.02.15 23:55:15 - [933] - Quote helana Tsero wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: I'll be honest, if you can't see why this is unhealthy for the economy I really don't know what to tell you. More freightors make it to market = more supply to markets. More supply = cheaper ships. Cheaper ships = more people can afford to use more ships in pvp = more explosions. More freightors make to to market = greator profits for corps. If corps are pvp corps that SRP then corp can afford to replace members PvP losses. More corp funds = more content for members = members enjoy eve more and dont unsub. Sounds horrible. You mean more wealth to top-down income systems? Mission accomplished... EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Cearain Plus 10 NV Cede Nullis 1453	Posted - 2016.02.16 00:10:25 - [934] - Quote I agree it seems odd to give freighters a hull hp buff because you are changing a module they could never even use. I think the problem for freighter pilots is really how hard it is to avoid Niarja or Uedama if you want to go between the largest trade hubs. Its like all the fish in the ocean need to pass through this tiny stream so its a bit too easy for the fishermen. CCP should make more routes between the high sec trade hubs and then it might not be such a problem. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
MRxX7XxMONKEY Sleepless Enterprises 11	Posted - 2016.02.16 01:33:52 - [935] - Quote Cearain wrote: I think the problem for freighter pilots is really how hard it is to avoid Niarja or Uedama if you want to go between the largest trade hubs. Its like all the fish in the ocean need to pass through this tiny stream so its a bit too easy for the fishermen. CCP should make more routes between the high sec trade hubs and then it might not be such a problem. goddamn, this, so insanely much
John E Normus new order logistics CODE. 732	Posted - 2016.02.16 03:27:21 - [936] - Quote We turned Aufay into a freighter graveyard after they got the ability to fit low slots. My personal favorite was the triple-expanded Provi with 1 blueprint in the cargo. When this drops expect space ultra-violence in highsec. Our primary target will be an empty, triple-bulked Anshar because math sucks, RP is king, and there are no breaks on achieving James 315's vision for highsec. Permits are still on sale. Thank you toot toot Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1224	Posted - 2016.02.16 08:28:43 - [937] - Quote helana Tsero wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: I'll be honest, if you can't see why this is unhealthy for the economy I really don't know what to tell you. More freightors make it to market = more supply to markets. More supply = cheaper ships. Cheaper ships = more people can afford to use more ships in pvp = more explosions. More freightors make to to market = greator profits for corps. If corps are pvp corps that SRP then corp can afford to replace members PvP losses. More corp funds = more content for members = members enjoy eve more and dont unsub. Sounds horrible. Sounds more like you don't understand how the game works. I mean, in the very same post you say it'll bring cheaper ships which in turn will bring greater profits to corps. I don't think you understand how this works. Of course the really beautiful part is that people claim this won't make much difference, which of course means hardly any freighters die in the relative scope....so one of your claims - be that prolific ganking or minimal impact is demonstrably false. Which is it? Oh and let me help you with the impact of reduced losses, in terms you'll be familiar with: Mining isk/hour takes a hit Mission loot drops value nerfed LP/Isk values drop Plex prices rise because people have more liquidity Industry becomes harder and harder to even turn a profit. Lower isk sink takes due to reduced loss/reduced replacement needs Whether you like it or not, with no component failure and a closed ecosystem the only way the economy functions at all is through loss. If you reduce the loss, you mess with the whole economy in an overall negative way. All of those things are a bad thing for the game. All of them. High sec doesn't need more safety, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 08:40:42 - [938] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Of course the really beautiful part is that people claim this won't make much difference, which of course means hardly any freighters die in the relative scope....so one of your claims - be that prolific ganking or minimal impact is demonstrably false. Which is it? Actually what it means is that nearly as many freighters will die after the change as before, the difference made by a bit of EHP will be minimal and the economy would cope even if the change was massive, so it will definitely cope with such a low impact change. The reason you're grasping at straws and not able to articulate a reasonable argument for why freighters should be unaffected and why gankers should be exempt from balance is because there is no reasonable argument. It will change, gankers will adapt and in a couple of months time it will be back to the same old "all they ever do is nerf us (if you ignore all buffs and treat every highsec PvP playstyle as one)". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1224	Posted - 2016.02.16 08:46:30 - [939] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Of course the really beautiful part is that people claim this won't make much difference, which of course means hardly any freighters die in the relative scope....so one of your claims - be that prolific ganking or minimal impact is demonstrably false. Which is it? Actually what it means is that nearly as many freighters will die after the change as before, the difference made by a bit of EHP will be minimal and the economy would cope even if the change was massive, so it will definitely cope with such a low impact change. The reason you're grasping at straws and not able to articulate a reasonable argument for why freighters should be unaffected and why gankers should be exempt from balance is because there is no reasonable argument. It will change, gankers will adapt and in a couple of months time it will be back to the same old "all they ever do is nerf us (if you ignore all buffs and treat every highsec PvP playstyle as one)". Do you not see the irony in your statement - if the affect is minimal so was ganking today. What is your evidence to support the need for a substantial nerf to ganking? So show me some math and numbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 09:46:12 - [940] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Do you not see the irony in your statement - if the affect is minimal so was ganking today. What is your evidence to support the need for a substantial nerf to ganking? So show me some math and numbers. No, you're drawing the wrong conclusions from my statement. What I'm saying is that the amount of ganking after this change will be nearly the same as the amount of gnaking before this change -your claim that the nerf is substantial are what I disagree with. I'm saying that you are attempting to blow the change out of proportion to push your own agenda and that in reality most gankers will simply adapt. CCP knows this and have said as much, and if anyone has the stats, it's them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1224	Posted - 2016.02.16 09:54:24 - [941] - Quote Oh there can be no doubt it is a substantial nerf. I doubt the likes of code etc will give a rats ass, but smaller groups are substantially hurt by it. I find it amusing you think I have an agenda having killed exactly 0 freighters, 7 industrials of which, all were null sec barring one, which was suspect flagged. Oh and one orca, which was also in nullsec. The only accusation of an "agenda" you can legitimately level at me is that I want to keep the game dangerous.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 10:51:52 - [942] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Oh there can be no doubt it is a substantial nerf. Of course there's doubt. The difficulty of ganking a freighter wasn't about burning through EHP, it's about catching the freighter. That's where most of the work goes. After that it's just getting F1 pressers to hit it. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I doubt the likes of code etc will give a rats ass, but smaller groups are substantially hurt by it. How? Any smaller group already capable of killing a freighter will at most have to recruit a few more warm bodies or hit it twice. If they can get it bumped, burning through the HP isn't a problem. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I find it amusing you think I have an agenda having killed exactly 0 freighters, 7 industrials of which, all were null sec barring one, which was suspect flagged. Oh and one orca, which was also in nullsec. The only accusation of an "agenda" you can legitimately level at me is that I want to keep the game dangerous. Whether or not this one character's KB supports it, there obviously is an agenda, otherwise you wouldn't be taking such a ludicrous stance. The level of danger is hardly being affected, since as I said above, the main hurdle is catching the freighter. If they were to suggest removing bumping, I'd be right there with you that it's a bad idea, but a HP buff is fine. And let's face it, gankers are about on par with the haulers they are attacking. Just because they have an alt that flies a disposable ship doesn't suddenly make them the most daring of pilots. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1228	Posted - 2016.02.16 10:59:31 - [943] - Quote So if it's not a substantial nerf, why are you railing so hard against people who think it is a poor directional move? If EHP isn't a barrier, why do they need more? Quote: Any smaller group already capable of killing a freighter will at most have to recruit a few more warm bodies or hit it twice. If they can get it bumped, burning through the HP isn't a problem. You've literally just explained WHY it raises the barrier for smaller groups. Finally If you think my "I want to keep eve dangerous" stance is ludicrous, then we're done here because your sorry arse is just trolling. Just like it does in a lot of other threads.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 11:13:23 - [944] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: So if it's not a substantial nerf, why are you railing so hard against people who think it is a poor directional move? Because I don't see the benefit to a relative nerf against freighters and turn a blanket change into a selective change just to save on some crying from people unwilling to adapt. Morrigan LeSante wrote: You've literally just explained WHY it raises the barrier for smaller groups. Small groups who never would have been freighter ganking now. Simply put, if your group is big enough to gank freighters now, you will be able to adapt and gank freighters after. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Finally If you think my "I want to keep eve dangerous" stance is ludicrous, then we're done here because your sorry arse is just trolling. Just like it does in a lot of other threads. LOL, so because I disagree with how you want to keep things dangerous (by catering to the tears of risk averse gankers), I must be trolling? I want EVE to be dangerous too. I want to see active mechanics that allow anti-gankers to form an effective force against gankers so there's a real danger of them actually running into opposition rather than relying on passive defense for gank targets, and as boneytooth put it, N+1 gameplay. What I don't want is CCP to buckle every time ganking groups whine pushing the game into a situation where ganking itself is the low risk option (which we are pretty much at). This is what you fail to see. Because they are shooting players, you automatically assume their gameplay must be fine and that "more dangerous" means making it easier for them. But for most gankers, it takes nearly no time, nearly no effort and nearly no cost to continue on their playstyle. It's by far the most rewarding straight PvP activity in the game and they get to do it while hiding their mains pretending they are better because they shoot white squares instead of red triangles sometimes. EVE being "more dangerous" requires risk and reward balance everywhere, not just arbitrarily punishing the low end income streams. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:07:47 - [945] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Small groups who never would have been freighter ganking now. Simply put, if your group is big enough to gank freighters now, you will be able to adapt and gank freighters after. It's not about being able to adapt., this change does nothing to actually balance ganking. It just decreases the amount of targets, it's making what we do less fun, more costly and require even more organisation. Lucas Kell wrote: I want EVE to be dangerous too. I want to see active mechanics that allow anti-gankers to form an effective force against gankers so there's a real danger of them actually running into opposition rather than relying on passive defense for gank targets. So you are vehemently against this change? It makes eve a lot safer, does not include any active tactics and actively increases the passive defense. Lucas Kell wrote: But for most gankers, it takes nearly no time, nearly no effort and nearly no cost to continue on their playstyle. Okay You think this change is bad but as long as it fucks gankers it's fine.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:19:45 - [946] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: It's not about being able to adapt., this change does nothing to actually balance ganking. It just decreases the amount of targets, it's making what we do less fun, more costly and require even more organisation. I'm a sov null capital pilot, cry me a river. So your playstyle might require a bit more effort. Sorry, I thought this was EVE? Jin Kugu wrote: So you are vehemently against this change? It makes eve a lot safer, does not include any active tactics and actively increases the passive defense. No, because this change isn't about ganking, it's about the way the damage control module works. Everything they are doing with it I agree with, and if the end result is that ganking requires a little more effort, I'm fine with that. In the long term I hope they proved more active mechanics for defending against gankers and reduce passive defense, but that is not this change. Jin Kugu wrote: You think this change is bad but as long as it fucks gankers it's fine. Not even remotely what I said, but nice try. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:25:10 - [947] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Of course there's doubt. The difficulty of ganking a freighter wasn't about burning through EHP, it's about catching the freighter. That's where most of the work goes. After that it's just getting F1 pressers to hit it. It's about catching a freighter worth ganking and getting enough people on it at zero to kill it. This is harder then you might think and about to become a lot harder. Lucas Kell wrote: How? Any smaller group already capable of killing a freighter will at most have to recruit a few more warm bodies or hit it twice. If they can get it bumped, burning through the HP isn't a problem. You don't hit freighters twice if it's at all possible to prevent it. It will most likely be fully repped by the time you can try again meaning that you have to use twice as many ships and beat the anti-gankers that are now fully ready with reps and jams. It's almost like you know nothing about what you are talking about. Lucas Kell wrote: If they were to suggest removing bumping, I'd be right there with you that it's a bad idea, but a HP buff is fine. Nerfing bumping is already coming, ccp just hasn't fully worked it out. Lucas Kell wrote: And let's face it, gankers are about on par with the haulers they are attacking. Just because they have an alt that flies a disposable ship doesn't suddenly make them the most daring of pilots. I also shoot a lot of cynos, does that meet the SMA expectation of elite pvp? I really care how daring you think I am so please let me know how I can live up to your obviously high standards.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:31:11 - [948] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: No, because this change isn't about ganking, it's about the way the damage control module works. Everything they are doing with it I agree with, and if the end result is that ganking requires a little more effort, I'm fine with that. In the long term I hope they proved more active mechanics for defending against gankers and reduce passive defense, but that is not this change. There are dozens of ways ccp could change damage controls without hitting ganking with a nerfbat. This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. You are against this change, you just can't accept it.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 44	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:48:19 - [949] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. Based on the information available in this thread that's just an unproven hypothesis. It would require reading either internal design documents or CCP Fozzie's mind to know that for sure.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 12:55:56 - [950] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: It's about catching a freighter worth ganking and getting enough people on it at zero to kill it. This is harder then you might think and about to become a lot harder. It's not though, is it? The hardest part is catching the freigther, then you just sling F1 monkeys at it. I've seen more than enough shocking overkills to know that this won't make much of a difference. You're just blowing it out of proportion in an attempt to shield yourself from any additional effort. Get over it and adapt. Jin Kugu wrote: You don't hit freighters twice if it's at all possible to prevent it. It will most likely be fully repped by the time you can try again meaning that you have to use twice as many ships and beat the anti-gankers that are now fully ready with reps and jams. It's almost like you know nothing about what you are talking about. And it will be possible to avoid it, by using more pilots, better trained pilots or better ships. Jin Kugu wrote: Nerfing bumping is already coming, ccp just hasn't fully worked it out. Then I'll pass judgement on that when they've figured it. Gankers need some way of holding a target, though bumping for eternity seems a tad over the top. Jin Kugu wrote: I also shoot a lot of cynos, does that meet the SMA expectation of elite pvp? I really care how daring you think I am so please let me know how I can live up to your obviously high standards. I don't claim to be an elite PvPer, but you whining on about a little additional effort as if you're not going after soft targets is laughable. Jin Kugu wrote: [There are dozens of ways ccp could change damage controls without hitting ganking with a nerfbat. This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. You are against this change, you just can't accept it. I'm sure there are but this change does it pretty well. It's not directly aimed at nerfing ganking, that's just an acceptable - and positive - side effect. Long term I hope they shift to active over passive mechanics for defending against gankers, but gankers are currently OP, so a little extra effort is the minimum that should be put on you. Nope, I'm not. I'm for it, and every time someone like you comes in trying to drum it up as bigger than it is, I take a moment reconsider taking on board your points and come back thinking it's even more of a worthy change. It's the equivalent of CCP dropping highsec incursion income by 10% and incursion runners posting repeatedly "IT'S THE END OF INCURSIONS, I QUIT!". It looks ridiculous and weakens your argument. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 235	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:15:05 - [951] - Quote So much salt in this thread. Just stopping by to scoop some up for my space potatoes.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:29:07 - [952] - Quote Why do you flood every thread about ganking while knowing almost nothing about it? This nerf does not exist in a vacuum, it is the last in a incredibly long list. No activity in eve is ~rebalanced~ as often as ganking. This is weird because we don't even kill 20 people a day doing it. Increasing EHP is dumb, not needed and has a high chance of shifting the meta into bulkhead freighters only. This change nerfs expanded freighters compared to bulkheaded ones but increases the ehp of both. We're not talking about bringing a couple more people. We're talking about freighter ganking being not worth your time anymore.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17428	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:32:02 - [953] - 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".
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 235	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:34:36 - [954] - Quote The tears are also a good substitute for vinegar, gonna collect some of those while I'm here as well.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17428	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:37:50 - [955] - 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.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:38:31 - [956] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: The tears are also a good substitute for vinegar, gonna collect some of those while I'm here as well. U mad and every variation of it just shows the rest of the world what a terrible pubbie you are.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2233	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:41:16 - [957] - Quote Ylmar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. Based on the information available in this thread that's just an unproven hypothesis. It would require reading either internal design documents or CCP Fozzie's mind to know that for sure. Or you can just read the OP where he actually says that this is an intended nerf to ganking. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 41	Posted - 2016.02.16 13:54:45 - [958] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: It's the equivalent of CCP dropping highsec incursion income by 10% and incursion runners posting repeatedly "IT'S THE END OF INCURSIONS, I QUIT!". It looks ridiculous and weakens your argument. It's the equivalent of decreasing incursion income and reducing the spawn rate to once every 14 days. Sure it's still profitable but why bother?
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1041	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:16:29 - [959] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ylmar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. Based on the information available in this thread that's just an unproven hypothesis. It would require reading either internal design documents or CCP Fozzie's mind to know that for sure. Or you can just read the OP where he actually says that this is an intended nerf to ganking. Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff. Quote: This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 44	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:18:10 - [960] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ylmar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. Based on the information available in this thread that's just an unproven hypothesis. It would require reading either internal design documents or CCP Fozzie's mind to know that for sure. Or you can just read the OP where he actually says that this is an intended nerf to ganking. I read no such thing in the OP. There is a difference between a change having a known (and perhaps even welcome) balancing effect on ganking and a change being "directly aimed at nerfing ganking".

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:19:44 - [961] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Why do you flood every thread about ganking while knowing almost nothing about it? I don;t, I know a lot about it, you're just blinded by bias. I've played both sides of it and I know how incredibly easy ganking is over it's opposition. Jin Kugu wrote: This nerf does not exist in a vacuum, it is the last in a incredibly long list. No activity in eve is ~rebalanced~ as often as ganking. This is weird because we don't even kill 20 people a day doing it. Ah yes, the "Every negative change to highsec aggression whether it's ganking or not is a gnaking nerf, yet every change that poitiviely affects ganking doesn;t count as a ganking buff". Seen it, heard it, bored with it. You guys want to pretend that you've only ever got nerfs then expect us to take you seriously? Jin Kugu wrote: Increasing EHP is dumb, not needed and has a high chance of shifting the meta into bulkhead freighters only. Doubt it. Most people probably won't change, and the guys with 20b isk in their expanded cargohold freighter will still be the ones dropping. Jin Kugu wrote: This change nerfs expanded freighters compared to bulkheaded ones but increases the ehp of both. We're not talking about bringing a couple more people. We're talking about freighter ganking being not worth your time anymore. Uhh... Empty freighter are killboard green. To be honest though if you don;t feel they are worth your time, then move on. I'm sure other people will take your place who do feel it's worth their time. Out of curitosity, how much is your time worth? Since you seem to think it's OK to arbitrarily exclude players from this buff who perform one one the dullest, lowest paid tasks in the game. A playstyle so dull that CCP have put forward plans to get NPCs to do it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:27:01 - [962] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Barge pilots don't adapt to anything, they just go for max yield on a procurer and left it mine away in safety. "CCPlease halp, miners are making smart choices and mitigating their risks". This is it right? BEfore they had no choice but to be hapless victims, then barges got changed so that smart ones can play smart and live, while dumb ones still die, and you;re upset because the target pool drained a bit. baltec1 wrote: Gankers don't post threads demanding their lives to be made easier lol? baltec1 wrote: 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". Probably. Some people wuill always whine, that doesn;t mean that beacuse a handful of people are whining that anyone even remotely near them in terms of playstyle should be ignored. That's like saying if a bunch of fat greedy people take a drive to a homeless shelter demanding servings of food that you shouldn't feed anyone. Jin Kugu wrote: It's the equivalent of decreasing incursion income and reducing the spawn rate to once every 14 days. Sure it's still profitable but why bother? Same could be said about literally every playstyle. You're basically upset that you won't be able to chuck out a couple of disposable ships then roll around in money. What's funny is that you will still be able to throw out just a few more ships and still roll around in it, yet you're acting like you're having your playstyle crippled. It's barely a change. I dread to think of what you will be like if they ever choose to actually balance anti-ganking so it's a viable playstyle. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1229	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:31:56 - [963] - Quote Anti ganking is already viable as a mechanic. People just don't because a) effort and b) freighters wont pay for it because it's already trivial to avoid being ganked. The very fact ganking is so rare and sufficiently behind walls to limit easy access is the reason you don't get white knights as paid mercs. If you want anti-ganking to become a thing, then ganking needs to be more prevalent. If it actually became hard to move big stuff around without being blapped as opposed to the situation today where you are required to be a) wholly and completely incompetent and b) unlucky to boot in order to lose anything of value.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:50:05 - [964] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Anti ganking is already viable as a mechanic. People just don't because a) effort and b) freighters wont pay for it because it's already trivial to avoid being ganked. It's not though, is it. Anti-gankers can't realistically stop a gank, and there's no rewards beyond what they can extort from the freighter. You probably wouldn't gank if the only way to get rewarded from it was a ransom, let alone if it was highly likely you'd fail every time. Morrigan LeSante wrote: The very fact ganking is so rare and sufficiently behind walls to limit easy access is the reason you don't get white knights as paid mercs. If you want anti-ganking to become a thing, then ganking needs to be more prevalent. If it actually became hard to move big stuff around without being blapped as opposed to the situation today where you are required to be a) wholly and completely incompetent and b) unlucky to boot in order to lose anything of value. Lol, so anti-ganking is only terrible because they haven't buffed ganking enough? The only thing that would happen if it became harder to move big stuff is that less hauling would get done. Nobody is going to pay a white knight for a fraction of a chance that they might be able to slow down a gank. In all likelihood they would be scammed, and in the rare occasions they weren't, even if the white knights stopped the first shot at the gank, they can't realistically stop them being bumped and all the gankers have to do is scale up the number of 2m isk catalysts and any opposition is irrelevant. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1229	Posted - 2016.02.16 14:55:22 - [965] - Quote Of course they can stop a bump, stop being bad and limiting your thinking. A noob ship could stop a bumper cold for christs sakes.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3100	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:13:23 - [966] - Quote Players have stopped bumping and they have stopped ganks. They'd find it much easier if they put half as much effort and organisation into it as the gankers. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:32:22 - [967] - Quote 33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1229	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:34:07 - [968] - Quote 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?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16281	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:51:40 - [969] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Which still amounts to more than what they've done in game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 16281	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:53:31 - [970] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff. Ah yes, because a slightly increased chance of getting loot from the freighter's wreck totally equates to a fifty percent increase in hull effective hitpoints. If you think that's balance, you need to lay off the drugs. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

FT Diomedes The Graduates 2282	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:53:37 - [971] - Quote 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. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 44	Posted - 2016.02.16 15:54:12 - [972] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Which still amounts to more than what they've done in game. Thank you for the continued free entertainment provided by you being butthurt.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1233	Posted - 2016.02.16 16:05:21 - [973] - 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. Yeah, it's lost on so many people. One need only look in this very thread and reddit about the changes to see the staggering numbers who believe this module will somehow be "optional" as long as those elements exist. Hell even CCP don't seem to get it. Edit: In fact the difference it makes is such that even if it offered 0% hull resists, it's usually going to be worth taking. Swing and a miss making these optional there.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2239	Posted - 2016.02.16 16:12:34 - [974] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ylmar wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: This change is directly aimed at nerfing ganking by increasing the passive defense. Based on the information available in this thread that's just an unproven hypothesis. It would require reading either internal design documents or CCP Fozzie's mind to know that for sure. Or you can just read the OP where he actually says that this is an intended nerf to ganking. Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff. Quote: This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack. As a New Order Agent I am already used to educate people, so we will do this step by step: In the sentence you highlighted he referenced two things. One is the buff, which is the increase to wreck HP, the other thing is the nerf, now what did he mean by that? I am confident you will get it right this time. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 328	Posted - 2016.02.16 16:21:32 - [975] - Quote I vote for he won't
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17436	Posted - 2016.02.16 17:29:54 - [976] - 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.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1044	Posted - 2016.02.16 17:33:00 - [977] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Estella Osoka wrote: Not a nerf. It is to balance the Wreck HP buff. Ah yes, because a slightly increased chance of getting loot from the freighter's wreck totally equates to a fifty percent increase in hull effective hitpoints. If you think that's balance, you need to lay off the drugs. You're just going to have to work harder for your loot. Just like AGs are going to have to work harder to destroy the wreck.
KickAss Tivianne Galactic Special Operations Division Silent Infinity 76	Posted - 2016.02.16 17:36:55 - [978] - Quote BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote: KickAss Tivianne wrote: I do agree with your other post, increasing HP does just increase the amount of people needed. You will have to send additional cats, or start upgrading people to Talos's. While maybe not a long term solutions, it does however that does raise the operational costs you have. As long as CCP does keep an eye on it and maybe looks to resolve the root cause, (Pregank), its a step in the right direction. Hi friend. You should know I'm MiniLuv, and we're not really the in the business of ganking empty freighters (unless they're red). You're right that the change does increase the operational cost of ganking, but, as I said in a previous post, it's not the monetary cost which hurts. We don't make money off of killing freighters worth 1b-5b isk. we make money off killing the 7b-20b freighters. Because that's the thing: the required DPS doesn't scale with the value of a freighter. A triple expanded freighter worth 3b falls just as easily as a triple expanded freighter worth 30b. The profit margin difference of 500m (now) to 1b (then) gank on that 3b is big, but it's insignificant in the case of the 30b freighter. So judicious choice of targets means that we don't really feel the economic effects of this change. As I've said before, the significant impact is requiring 5 to 10 more pilots, 10 to 20 more catalyst pilots. The effort required in making that happen far outweighs the loss of income we face because of increased bottom line on ganking. KickAss Tivianne wrote: As far as running an operational loss. You should probably talk to your FCs and come up with a new plan to look at targets that actually have stuff in them. Instead of just blowing up empty freighter just because your group claims the freighter is in as you say, "your space" and that they did not observe "your" laws. This was a consequence of a confluence of several factors, including, but not limited to, the end of summer / school getting back in session, increased anti-ganker presence, increased wreck shooting, hyperdunking proliferation, overfishing and more. It's really outside the scope of this discussion, but, again, MiniLuv doesn't really gank empty freighters. It only really occurs when we get thirsty / miss a gank and need to cure our blue balls. We also don't have any Code we follow or a 'your space' thing or 'our laws' thing. We gank freighters because they're fat or they're red to The Imperium. That's it. I figured after being our adversary for nearly a year, you would have learned this by now. Hi ya! Thats cool your MiniLuv. I understand the ganking of a red freighter. That happens. However on my side of things, I am unaware of what is specifically red to you. I wish I could read minds, but have not got trained that to 5 yet. ;) Though I have seen lots of Goons, Karmafleet, Code all roll together on massive destruction ganks. My statement, while not directly to you, but there are many of those who often gank empty freighters, just for the reasons I mentioned. That is what I was referencing. There is a great sound clip of a code FC that speaks to my point. I will be happy to reference that and provide that evidence. Gankers control many aspects of the assault. Im no sure why this slight buff is a problem. As you said, you don't believe. This while by itself is not a huge option, but if the freighter has additional logi, and can rep shields/armor during this time, it can be the matter of life and death to freighter. Because just the other day, I saw a gank fail because the 12 man amazing multi boxer was not there (I am taken back every time I see him control that many ships, I give him props for keeping it all straight!). So the idea of a hull buff to make it harder, to make additional people need to be there for a successful gank does make sense. This is a step. Fozzie mentioned that " these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either". I look forward to hear what those future changes are as well. Prolong bumping fix? Fixing the looting so the FY follows the loot, not just the initial throw away ship to drop the loot in the freighter. Making -9, -10 worse? Something else all together? Either way, I agree with Fozzie, gankers will have to adapt to the new normal. Just like AG has to adapt to not being able to shoot a wreck (and its amazing how much that gets thrown around in local thanking CCP for this feature). However, the fact that this started to be addressed by CCP is a validation of the problem . I look forward to seeing the progression of this!
Ms GoodyMaker Delainen Technologies 2	Posted - 2016.02.16 17:58:31 - [979] - Quote Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space.
Vanilla Mooses GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 65	Posted - 2016.02.16 18:15:46 - [980] - Quote Ways I know this thread is going places: Lucas is posting his opinions. Is there a single thread on the Internet that he has ever considered not posting in? Awful pubbies posting varients of 'u mad bro'

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2217	Posted - 2016.02.16 18:21:54 - [981] - Quote KickAss Tivianne wrote: This is a step. Fozzie mentioned that " these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either". I look forward to hear what those future changes are as well. Prolong bumping fix? Fixing the looting so the FY follows the loot, not just the initial throw away ship to drop the loot in the freighter. Making -9, -10 worse? Something else all together? Either way, I agree with Fozzie, gankers will have to adapt to the new normal. Just like AG has to adapt to not being able to shoot a wreck (and its amazing how much that gets thrown around in local thanking CCP for this feature). However, the fact that this started to be addressed by CCP is a validation of the problem . I look forward to seeing the progression of this! What problem? Fozzie literally said that ganking isn't going away and that this was just a nerf to ganking to balance the buff of the wreck changes. He never said that ganking was a problem, just that he was using this opportunity to tweak balance a bit. CCP may very well pull the trigger and patch out ganking sometime in the future, but there is no hint of that, or even changes to bumping, looting, or security status penalties in his words. Reading that in or claiming this change as validation of your distaste for ganking is pure wishful thinking. Bumping may change. Looting may change, but gankers are still going to be exploding industrials even if these systems are tweaked or replaced. In fact, I still expect major changes to criminal gameplay in the near-ish future - the playstyle is due - likely the removal of the faction police in the next revamp of highsec along with a new bounty system, to stimulate more player-driven conflict in highsec. But this is all off topic. The big ganking groups will not even notice this change in a few weeks once they have adjusted their formulas and equipment to the new numbers. The increased loot freighters will now carry will offset the increased cost and the game will go on with freighters getting dunked daily as Fozzie clearly said CCP intends to happen. If that ever stops, I would expect CCP to reverse these changes or make some others to make freighters more vulnerable. This change hurts small ganking operations, clueless freighter pilots who are now going to lose even more when they get ganked that first time, and perhaps haulers the most whose rates are about to tank, but it isn't going to affect the big ganking groups nor does it herald any end to this intended game mechanic.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2957	Posted - 2016.02.16 18:54:36 - [982] - Quote Vanilla Mooses wrote: Ways I know this thread is going places: Lucas is posting his opinions. Is there a single thread on the Internet that he has ever considered not posting in? Awful pubbies posting varients of 'u mad bro' You missed the 10 page purge. So many other fun discussions going on
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1798	Posted - 2016.02.16 19:12:13 - [983] - Quote 'Basic' Damage Control seems to be useless and 'Radical' Damage Control gonna be useless as well - no wait, they keep beeing useless :D
Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.16 19:43:48 - [984] - Quote 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1233	Posted - 2016.02.16 19:50:33 - [985] - Quote 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.
Mai Khumm Lonetrek Freeport 816	Posted - 2016.02.16 20:21:58 - [986] - Quote Ms GoodyMaker wrote: Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space. This is called lowsec...
John E Normus new order logistics CODE. 735	Posted - 2016.02.16 21:59:30 - [987] - Quote Ms GoodyMaker wrote: Its been a long time coming, CCP now has to take the last step, and implement a PVP flag system for empire space. No more suicide ganking in empire space. If a corp doesn't war dec you, you should be able to be fired upon by another player in empire space. CCP Fozzie worked super hard to improve the Skiff and curb the elk-genocide in the belts and this is what you have to say!?! There is no pleasing some people... Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Kibitt Kallinikov Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 16	Posted - 2016.02.16 22:17:52 - [988] - Quote I'm worried about the future of the Ares. Most other inty have the CPU to just fit a t2 scram, but the Ares is stuck in a spot where it would have to make sacrifices, and there's the minor annoyance of the fact that t2 disruptor capacitor cost is going up with Ares being the only tackle inty that isn't cap stable with everything running due to railguns requiring capacitor. [Ares, Fast Ares.] Damage Control II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation 5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Warp Disruptor II 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II That's the fit I currently use, and it has 4 CPU left over. With sig amp changes, I can get up to 6.25 extra CPU before I start messing with the functionality of the ship. Downgrading weapons to 75mm gatling or Ion Blasters, either of which have lackluster projection. You can't touch the DC or you lose any pretense of tank. Ares isn't a dominant inty, yet it's being hurt the most by these changes. Surely there must be something that can be done about this! Yeah, Ares isn't my favorite inty, but I feel the God of War shouldn't also be the worst tackle inty in game. I am totally fine with lowering the strength of competitors, namely the fact that, under MWD thrust, Malediction and Ares have nearly identical agility. Personally, I would say the easiest fix is to simply hand the Ares a stronger capacitor and smaller base sig. If it doesn't get to be more agile than its Amarrian counterpart, the Ares should at least be able to choose between compact MWD and other variants, which currently not competitive because it's inferior in the capacitor side of things so only a perfectly skilled pilot can afford the cap instability that such an option brings. However, with something as low as +1 GJ/s after skills (preferably via raw capacitor size than recharge time), Ares could choose to go for something similar to what it has now but with compact MWD for overall slightly higher sig, or try different weapons with an active tank, which is currently difficult for the Malediction due to capacitor size. Anyways, I'm just trying to take a current problem that exists with the Ares (capacitor) and propose a solution that allows meaningful choices rather than nerfing all the competition or asking for extra fitting to keep things "the way they were".
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 286	Posted - 2016.02.17 01:04:59 - [989] - Quote Quote: For example, years ago (I mean like when I started playing and for years after) hi-sec ganking was just NEVER as big as it became the past few years. And you're wrong. Before the insurance nerf, for example, suicide ganking was far, far more prevalent. Anyone who ganked at the time will tell you the same thing. For crying out loud, you used to be able to gank in fully fit Battleships and turn a profit, something that is impossible today. [quote] lol Geddons ganking in niarja. In the end talking profit lines is moot. Citas role out soon and markets will completely go out of balance for a bit as the usual things we use disappear. As the POS's and Outposts we use for bonuses vanish. With how the Citadel bonuses roll in hi/low/null for industry, for how T2 product will occur, How exactly are AOE links going to work on Orca/Rorq, the hell is actually happening to the rorq?! Worrying about Freighter sales and cap sales is narrow compared to how everything soon is changing for those of us who do Industry, as well as those of us who do PVP. Now let's stop bickering over a price point that will change in 1-2 months as our POS bonuses end and unknown bonuses begin. If anything just remember Hi-sec NPC Tax is going up and NPC tax is being removed from Null to make Citadels more desirable outside of hi-sec. No one knows that percentage. All we know is, Citadels outside of Hi-sec will have a large enough advantage that it will want to make industrialists shift production lines elsewhere. The DCU change will most likely also take a large roll with the base hull resists where it concerns those capitals found in Low and Null. Remember capital changes are coming and they are taking drastic changes to the stats with all new modules coming. Just as no one wants the Null block receiving all the buffs, no one wants low, or wormholes, or incursions, or indy's, or gankers. This change affects more than just spamming 20-30 cheap Catalysts or Battlecruisers at a freighter of any type. This is more than just shooting mining barges. This affects all game plays. As someone mentioned how the care bears are being the loudest to make sure this change stays, it's actually less bears and more ganker alts of honestly, Null sec pilots. Lets be honest, we do make up the large block of hi-sec gankers. When we don't Sov wand we all either Incursion or hop in a cata and pounce some unsuspecting player because its easy to harvest tears. Just as its easy enough to form up and pop freighters. We all know escorts don't stop serious parties from popping em.
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 286	Posted - 2016.02.17 01:24:29 - [990] - Quote Kibitt Kallinikov wrote: I'm worried about the future of the Ares. Most other inty have the CPU to just fit a t2 scram, but the Ares is stuck in a spot where it would have to make sacrifices, and there's the minor annoyance of the fact that t2 disruptor capacitor cost is going up with Ares being the only tackle inty that isn't cap stable with everything running due to railguns requiring capacitor. [Ares, Fast Ares.] Damage Control II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation 5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Warp Disruptor II 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S 125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II That's the fit I currently use, and it has 4 CPU left over. With sig amp changes, I can get up to 6.25 extra CPU before I start messing with the functionality of the ship. Downgrading weapons to 75mm gatling or Ion Blasters, either of which have lackluster projection. You can't touch the DC or you lose any pretense of tank. Ares isn't a dominant inty, yet it's being hurt the most by these changes. Surely there must be something that can be done about this! Yeah, Ares isn't my favorite inty, but I feel the God of War shouldn't also be the worst tackle inty in game. I am totally fine with lowering the strength of competitors, namely the fact that, under MWD thrust, Malediction and Ares have nearly identical agility. Personally, I would say the easiest fix is to simply hand the Ares a stronger capacitor and smaller base sig. If it doesn't get to be more agile than its Amarrian counterpart, the Ares should at least be able to choose between compact MWD and other variants, which currently not competitive because it's inferior in the capacitor side of things so only a perfectly skilled pilot can afford the cap instability that such an option brings. However, with something as low as +1 GJ/s after skills (preferably via raw capacitor size than recharge time), Ares could choose to go for something similar to what it has now but with compact MWD for overall slightly higher sig, or try different weapons with an active tank, which is currently difficult for the Malediction due to capacitor size. Anyways, I'm just trying to take a current problem that exists with the Ares (capacitor) and propose a solution that allows meaningful choices rather than nerfing all the competition or asking for extra fitting to keep things "the way they were". I figure a God of war wouldn't be fitting rails, he'd be blaster fit and breaking that ships nose. Not everything must Kite, some some can fly in hold tight under the guns and splode em with more force. You could also drop the 125's to a smaller Rail. Your ship is also getting a 33% buff to hull, while not much on a ceptor, the changes are made so we can do more without having to swear by the DCU.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1932	Posted - 2016.02.17 01:25:15 - [991] - Quote 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 T2 DC: 15% DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 350	Posted - 2016.02.17 01:28:13 - [992] - Quote this should be an interesting change...super tanky hecate structure buff?
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 52	Posted - 2016.02.17 01:56:13 - [993] - 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. Most of the time I think that for frigates it's going to be a second damage mod that will be fit, instead of an EANM. With good skills and heat, you can look forward to tormenters and merlins that do 260 dps. This is going to spice the frigate meta up a lot.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17437	Posted - 2016.02.17 05:11:25 - [994] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4714	Posted - 2016.02.17 05:40:38 - [995] - Quote Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP. The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked. Buffing the play style for the lazy, stupid and incompetent is in absolutely noway warranted. Fozzie is simply wrong on this, and his argument about wolves and elk was just...well stupid. Of course, if he has some impressive data on this the best course of action would be to share it...make the case vs. just making an idiotic decree backed by literally nothing other and moronic analogy. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7215	Posted - 2016.02.17 07:51:06 - [996] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP. It's still not a 50% buff to EHP though. It's a 50% buff to hull HP at most, which doesn't equal a 50% buff to EHP unless armor and shield are both zero. Teckos Pech wrote: The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked. So is ganking, and this is a minor increase in effort to that, and an increase only to the easiest part of the gank. It doesn't affect how hard it is to catch a freighter. Again this all comes down to gankers blowing the effect of the change out of proportion to push their agenda. Excluding freighters would be giving them a relative nerf, and they've had enough nerfs I'd say. Teckos Pech wrote: BTW: Anti-gankers should also oppose this system. In all likelihood it will mean freighters will be bumped for longer periods as gank fleets wait to get sufficient numbers for the gank. As there has already been 2 recent threads on this topic one would think they'd realize this...but then again some segments of the player base need help with understanding basic incentives. I doubt it. Most of the time when they bump for huge periods of time they have no intention of ganking. Anyway, I expect that to be addressed separately. Besides, Black Pedro has already explained how this is in fact a nerf to dumber freighter pilots and haulers, so that's fine. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Anthar Thebess 1464	Posted - 2016.02.17 07:56:37 - [997] - Quote Question to CCP Fozzie. Can we have 'Tears' Modified Sansha Damage Control ? Stats : 1 PG 30 CPU 38% structure resists 2.5% armor resist 2.5% shield resist Special ability 99% CPU reduction to all Industrial Capital ships. Price 50mil + 50k Sansha LP. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1234	Posted - 2016.02.17 08:14:26 - [998] - 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. Links tips it though. I just ran a maller with an Eos booster. EFT stated armor EHP: 2 ENAM 12309 1 ENAM 1 DC 12415 Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory. I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest.
Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.17 08:54:03 - [999] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Links tips it though. I just ran a maller with an Eos booster. EFT stated armor EHP: 2 ENAM 12309 1 ENAM 1 DC 12415 Similar results are had with an omen (7278 vs 7341), in case people are wondering about the native hull resists on the maller. Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory. I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest. Links are going away. Damage control cost CPU and i CPU is constant problem on armor ships. For fights shield ships use hull and armor for a emergency buffer, for armor ships this is structure only 33% base resist is good cheep buff to remove need of damage controls in many fits. Using Adaptive Nano save you 30 CPU that can be used to upgrade other items in your fitting. DCU will not completely go away, but it will no longer be mandatory module. Thanks to this change, all small ships no longer need to fit DCU, as gain for them will be minimal. This is a free buff CCP offered to all ships and i like it. Extra defense for nothing.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1234	Posted - 2016.02.17 08:59:33 - [1000] - Quote Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases. Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet.

Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.17 09:37:21 - [1001] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases. Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Off grid links are going away if you care to check what stuff is on sisi, you will see that there are BPO for projected links. DCU will be mandatory for T2/ T3 cruisers ships that need resist maxed out. Battle Cruisers, Cruisers and smaller ships will get free bonus and a lowslot and 30 CPU. T2 800mm plate need less CPU than a DCU and will provide bigger buff to armor EHP the same apply to all smaller ships and plates. Fleet battleships will have possibility to fit 3 racial hardeners and ENAM. CPU not power grid is issue on armor ships. Megathron Base stats : powergrid Output 15500 MW CPU Output 600 tf Considering 3% implant for Power Grid: *15500 3% = 465MW 3% implant for CPU: 600 3% = 18tf* By dropping DCU and preserving 33% base structure resist you can easily fit an additional 1600mm armor plate using 3% implant and 800mm plate using 1% or even no implant. 3% CPU implant is still worthless as 18CPU allow to upgrade 1 module. Now take into consideration that this stats are before considering skills. I like this buff very much. This is huge buff to all armor ships: - they gain 33% resist on hull that makes DCU obsolete and provide important buffer - 30CPU extra allow them to easily fit additional hardener or plate that will provide immense boost to armor EHP. * 400mm for cruisers * 800mm for battlecruisers * 1600mm for battleships
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1234	Posted - 2016.02.17 10:13:38 - [1002] - Quote 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.
Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.17 10:34:59 - [1003] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17438	Posted - 2016.02.17 12:05:45 - [1004] - 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.
Code First The Scope Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.02.17 13:50:28 - [1005] - Quote 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.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3100	Posted - 2016.02.17 14:27:49 - [1006] - Quote 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... EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17439	Posted - 2016.02.17 15:41:11 - [1007] - 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.
Chill'4 Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.02.17 16:57:29 - [1008] - Quote I predict the reactive armor hardener getting more use, one RAH with 1/2 EANM's will be a nice combo as long as you have the cap. Damage Control is still good and will continue to be used often.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17439	Posted - 2016.02.17 17:24:07 - [1009] - 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
Vulfen Snuff Box Snuffed Out 183	Posted - 2016.02.17 17:31:11 - [1010] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases. Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2616	Posted - 2016.02.17 17:57:13 - [1011] - Quote Vulfen wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases. Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure. This is pretty important. The actual strenght of a DCU really change a lot depending on how much of your raw HP are in structure. Once you add extenders and plates to a ship, the ratio tend to get very biased toward the usual racial tanking buffer layer and away from structure.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1238	Posted - 2016.02.17 18:21:11 - [1012] - Quote Vulfen wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases. Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure. Can you post some examples (of a fit where you'll drop a DCU for a hardener)? Because unless I'm missing something the buffer level is irrelevant. Genuinely interested.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2988	Posted - 2016.02.18 04:06:48 - [1013] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. You are also neglecting the armour skills in your maths which push those resist modules higher for armour. But as long as DCU gives armour & shield resist bonuses that don't stack you are quite right that it will remain a virtually compulsory module in nearly every fit.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4722	Posted - 2016.02.18 06:53:54 - [1014] - Quote WTF is the point of Tiericide? I thought it was to fix what was broken. But lets look at this change. The "problem" is that for most fits fitting a damage control is a necessity. So the solution: 1. Build part of the benefits of fitting a DC into the hull of not only those ships that can fit a DC, but also those ships that cannot because...wreck HP went up. If you are saying Whisky Tango Foxtrot you are not alone. 2. There appears to be some sort of fetish with the status quo. If we nerf DCs...oh noes!!! people's fits will have lower EHP....so build in the DC, partially, into every hull to get us "close" back to where we started. 3. The DC still looks like a must fit module in many cases. It is at this point one has to ask...what the heck have people been smoking? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4722	Posted - 2016.02.18 06:57:44 - [1015] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Freighters and Jump Freighters are not low on hull HP. The vast bulk of the HP for those ships is in hull. Was this kind of completely untrue statement made in jest or was somebody using some powerful mind altering substances? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4724	Posted - 2016.02.18 07:19:17 - [1016] - Quote Tiericide: let's change ** because...well...let's change **. The whole process has become lost in itself. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Pirmera Yumimura Helios Alliance Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2016.02.18 08:54:19 - [1017] - Quote Good Change, for us Frighter Pilots (not AFK like you do it). I like it where both Party (Gangers and Freighters) need to put up an equivalent ISK sum on the field. Tears of joy from me and Tears of Whine from the "Professional Legal no Risk no Skill Gankers". Keep u the good Work
Andrew Indy POS Party Ember Sands 151	Posted - 2016.02.18 08:57:00 - [1018] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Can you post some examples (of a fit where you'll drop a DCU for a hardener)? Because unless I'm missing something the buffer level is irrelevant. Genuinely interested. There are several Cruisers sized ships that get more EHP along with better resists by not fitting a DCU. Not to mention that most Active Tank Armor ships benefit from more resists over a DCU (assuming you want at least 1 or 2 DPS mods) Here is a Legion I through together. 239K EHP , If you drop the DCU for a EM hardener you get 244K. This gap gets bigger when you add fleet boosts , Slaves, Overheating and Pimp. [Legion, Test] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Thermal Hardener II Damage Control II 1600mm Steel Plates II 1600mm Steel Plates II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifiers Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst This fit has 284K EHP with Heat, 258K with a DCU and one EM hardener removed. [Impel, Test] Armor EM Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Explosive Hardener II 800mm Steel Plates II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II This fit has 97K EHP with a EM hardener and 98k with a DCU (DCU2 is 1% better) , but you gain 7K EHP if you are overheating over a DCU2. Not to mention you resists are way better for Logi. Once you add pimp and slaves the EM hardener is better in every way. [Sacrilege, Test] Damage Control II Armor Thermal Hardener II 1600mm Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1238	Posted - 2016.02.18 09:47:47 - [1019] - Quote With links that first legion has more EHP with the DC than without (315647 vs 312295). And if you fit it thusly, it is better than all: [Legion, Test] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II 1600mm Steel Plates II 1600mm Steel Plates II [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifiers Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst (eos links) 332531 EHP, 319080 in armor alone. ed: Sac has similar results, 128389 EHP with 120000 armo ehp moving to 135093 EHP and 126705 armor EHP. I didnt check the impel.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 818	Posted - 2016.02.21 20:42:08 - [1020] - Quote Okay, so I just started reading this today, so these changes haven't had time to sink in for me, but why do freighters need this? My first thought is that many other ships that CAN use a DC will loose less for not using one but not be any (or at least much) better off with one come 9 March, but since freighters CANNOT even use a DC, they are getting an unneeded buff to their structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, why are we doing that to freighters? I'm a freighter owner myself, more likely to be a victim of ganking sooner than be a ganker, and even I'm calling this a slap in gankers' faces. I know they buffed wreck hp, but this isn't quite an even trade. I must have missed something. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1092	Posted - 2016.02.21 21:04:50 - [1021] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Okay, so I just started reading this today, so these changes haven't had time to sink in for me, but why do freighters need this? My first thought is that many other ships that CAN use a DC will loose less for not using one but not be any (or at least much) better off with one come 9 March, but since freighters CANNOT even use a DC, they are getting an unneeded buff to their structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, why are we doing that to freighters? I'm a freighter owner myself, more likely to be a victim of ganking sooner than be a ganker, and even I'm calling this a slap in gankers' faces. I know they buffed wreck hp, but this isn't quite an even trade. I must have missed something. Freighters are not the only ships in New Eden. Btw, remove bulkheads or restrict em for freighters only. Meta fixed. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 818	Posted - 2016.02.21 21:25:05 - [1022] - Quote Not sure I follow. I'm wondering why CCP is extending this to freighters. I'm of the thinking that freighters shouldn't get the same treatment as other ships. If that's what CCP wants to do, fine with me, but I'm not gonna lie...that's a lot of extra tank for freighters that is (forgive me if I misunderstood CCP Fozzie) is meant to offset the structure resist nerf to DC's. Since freighters cannot even use DC's, they're getting that extra tank for free essentially. I'm not against giving ships in general the structure resist buff, I just don't see freighters as a ship class that needs that. Shouldn't they at least be considered for a weaker buff? "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4741	Posted - 2016.02.21 21:48:50 - [1023] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Okay, so I just started reading this today, so these changes haven't had time to sink in for me, but why do freighters need this? My first thought is that many other ships that CAN use a DC will loose less for not using one but not be any (or at least much) better off with one come 9 March, but since freighters CANNOT even use a DC, they are getting an unneeded buff to their structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, why are we doing that to freighters? I'm a freighter owner myself, more likely to be a victim of ganking sooner than be a ganker, and even I'm calling this a slap in gankers' faces. I know they buffed wreck hp, but this isn't quite an even trade. I must have missed something. They don't. CCP Fozzie apparently does not like freighter ganking. Yes, I have a freighter and a jump freighter so this change will benefit me....but I still do not like it. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3112	Posted - 2016.02.22 00:59:01 - [1024] - Quote It wouldnt make sense to have every ship but freighters gain structure resists, can you imagine the whine threads? CCP just aren't nerfing freighter HP to compensate. Sucks i know. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 452	Posted - 2016.02.22 01:12:22 - [1025] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: It wouldnt make sense to have every ship but freighters gain structure resists, can you imagine the whine threads? CCP just aren't nerfing freighter HP to compensate. Sucks i know. To be fair, it doesn't make sense for any ship, outside of special niche cases, to have structure resists natively. It's structure, and that means your structure will have explosive resist that your armor layer won't. I know I get a bit fixated on that, but really, the 0% resists was the entire point of structure. Giving ships natural resists in structure still does not make any sense to me. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4744	Posted - 2016.02.22 01:34:58 - [1026] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: It wouldnt make sense to have every ship but freighters gain structure resists, can you imagine the whine threads? CCP just aren't nerfing freighter HP to compensate. Sucks i know. Maybe CCP needs to HTFU. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.02.22 02:10:31 - [1027] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Okay, so I just started reading this today, so these changes haven't had time to sink in for me, but why do freighters need this? My first thought is that many other ships that CAN use a DC will loose less for not using one but not be any (or at least much) better off with one come 9 March, but since freighters CANNOT even use a DC, they are getting an unneeded buff to their structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, why are we doing that to freighters? I'm a freighter owner myself, more likely to be a victim of ganking sooner than be a ganker, and even I'm calling this a slap in gankers' faces. I know they buffed wreck hp, but this isn't quite an even trade. I must have missed something. this is extremely far from a slap in the face to gankers in fact it isnt even close to enough to put some proper risk/reward on ganking since all they need are some low sp alts in catalysts and they can gank anything dirt cheap higher ehp just means they need to increase the number of cata alts in the gank. this is why gankers wont even fear ganking empty or cheap fits cause the value the kill adds to their killboard stats is normally worth the cost of ganking it with cheap cata alts. 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. what we really need is to add risk to the bump-tackling tactic gankers use to risk free hold any ship for as long as they want while they form up the catalyst fleet to come kill the target. EDIT: when is this stuff gonna hit SISI for testing?
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 235	Posted - 2016.02.22 04:06:38 - [1028] - Quote On another note, if you wanted to fix freighter ganking, all that was required is to give freighters the same inertia bonus as JFs so they can be instantly webbed off gate with lvl 4 or 5. That way freighting is safe as long as you use a webber and don't AFK. Those that choose to afk or not use a webber or fail to skill up properly still leave targets for gankers. Buffing their HP won't fix ganking, it will just make it harder. Lots of groups gank for fun rather than profit, and using gank thoraxes instead of catalysts really isn't a big deal. This would make freighting safely a skill and somethng you need to learn and practice, rather than something you just automatically get by default. TL;DR This changes nothing, give freighters an inertia bonus instead so that freighter ganking still affects bad pilots that don't take the time to learn their trade but has less of an effect on those that are careful and know what they're doing.
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 264	Posted - 2016.02.22 06:04:33 - [1029] - Quote I think this is a good change in terms of more fitting options, but is also more benefit to kiters and especially small ships because bigger ships almost always have room and resources for a dcu, but on destroyers and frigates its more of an optional thing. would be good to see more room for face brawling and bigger ships in the meta but i feel like this change is a small nudge in the other direction.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 413	Posted - 2016.02.22 06:13:56 - [1030] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Buffing their HP won't fix ganking, it will just make it harder. Lots of groups gank for fun rather than profit, and using gank thoraxes instead of catalysts really isn't a big deal. Y'know gank thoraxes are dumb, right? They're barely a dps upgrade. The correct next step is vexors (they have issues, especially for -10s and especially for -10 multiboxers),stealth bombers (purifiers and hounds are actually good gank ships, it just took us a long time to work it out) or brutixes. Or just straight to taloses.

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 235	Posted - 2016.02.22 08:17:17 - [1031] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Murkar Omaristos wrote: Buffing their HP won't fix ganking, it will just make it harder. Lots of groups gank for fun rather than profit, and using gank thoraxes instead of catalysts really isn't a big deal. Y'know gank thoraxes are dumb, right? They're barely a dps upgrade. The correct next step is vexors (they have issues, especially for -10s and especially for -10 multiboxers),stealth bombers (purifiers and hounds are actually good gank ships, it just took us a long time to work it out) or brutixes. Or just straight to taloses. ^^ this has literally no bearing on my point whatsoever.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17442	Posted - 2016.02.22 09:13:06 - [1032] - 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.
Bug Towns Illusions of Normality SpaceMonkey's Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.02.22 11:01:08 - [1033] - Quote Sounds like CCP Fozzy got ganked for his JF and 60b Cargo and raged so he wants to give himself a Buff?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7229	Posted - 2016.02.22 11:49:41 - [1034] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Not sure I follow. I'm wondering why CCP is extending this to freighters. I'm of the thinking that freighters shouldn't get the same treatment as other ships. Because they are extending it to all ships. Ships who currently don't use but can fit a DC are getting the same buff. Buffing all other ships that can fit a DC then skipping off those that doesn't would be giving them a relative nerf for no real reason other than to save gankers a few extra ships and some effort. Meanwhile the gankers ships (who also don't use DCs to keep their DPS up) will be harder for AGs to volley off the field. It's certainly not a s big a deal as people are making it out to be (you can see the full CODE member propaganda push going into full swing) and people will adapt, which EVE players claim to be good at so v0v. All I know is I'm less likely to get a payout from when red frog/pushx/nee lose one of my freighter loads, yet I'm not crying about it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 413	Posted - 2016.02.22 12:18:45 - [1035] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: ^^ this has literally no bearing on my point whatsoever. Excuse me for knowing what I'm talking about :P
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2624	Posted - 2016.02.22 14:11:45 - [1036] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. I always though the DCU should of been a "oh ****" button and not a mod you perma-run at next to 0 cost. It's too good and has no counter. Even before making is passive, the cap cost and cycle time meant it anyone had snowball's chance in hell of turning it off. and it didn't even take a second for any ship to regen the cap needed to restart it between neuts cycles.
Zockhandra Jewish Zeppelin Mafia 29	Posted - 2016.02.22 14:21:49 - [1037] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Skyler Hawk wrote: Will the shield and armour resists provided by damage controls continue to stack separately from links and other hardeners? Yes. Surely not EVERY ship needs the flat 33%? I mean just going off some simple steps.... An ark, fitted with a hull tank, with armor fleet boosts, max skills and high grade slaves gets just a little short of 800k ehp... Wat? Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.02.22 15:22:56 - [1038] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. a little extra tank is only gonna make the gankers grumble a little that they need a few more ships. ganking will remain safe/easy and almost no risk because risk-free macharial alts using bumping mechanics to perma tackle targets they wanna gank.
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.02.22 15:27:57 - [1039] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I always though the DCU should of been a "oh ****" button and not a mod you perma-run at next to 0 cost. It's too good and has no counter. Even before making is passive, the cap cost and cycle time meant it anyone had snowball's chance in hell of turning it off. and it didn't even take a second for any ship to regen the cap needed to restart it between neuts cycles. the DCU is not that over powered people die all the time all it does is give you a very small window to gtfo in smaller situations or for maybe logi to cycle around to you even then i still saw many people with DCU II die before logi could get to them specialy since in larger fleets there is this thing called LAG (ti-di). this is more of a buff to the space rich who will use the deadspace/officer dcu II and to capitals/supers using officer dcu to get over 60% hull resist and the officer dcu applies almost a tech 1 invuln of no stacking penalized shield resist and more then an t2 enam to armor. so tbh only real issue is the space rich who will use the deadspace/officer varients.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7231	Posted - 2016.02.22 16:34:24 - [1040] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: Surely not EVERY ship needs the flat 33%? I mean just going off some simple steps.... An ark, fitted with a hull tank, with armor fleet boosts, max skills and high grade slaves gets just a little short of 800k ehp... Wat? How dare a 7b isk capital ship have EHP in line with (well, actually significantly below) other capital ships! See the problem you are having here is you are looking at ships as if they should be designed around their potential to be ganked. They shouldn't, they should be designed around their function and where they fit into the tree with other ships. That they can be ganked is something that shouldn't be actively discouraged, but shouldn't be the leading - or even a significant - factor in their design. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 453	Posted - 2016.02.22 17:00:56 - [1041] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: How dare a 7b isk capital ship have EHP in line with (well, actually significantly below) other capital ships! See the problem you are having here is you are looking at ships as if they should be designed around their potential to be ganked. They shouldn't, they should be designed around their function and where they fit into the tree with other ships. That they can be ganked is something that shouldn't be actively discouraged, but shouldn't be the leading - or even a significant - factor in their design. Be careful what you ask for, though. CCP Fozzie: "In tomorrow's patch, we decided to realign cap ship stats so there's no more glaring deficiencies between hulls of roughly similar size. Oh, and that means no more freighters in highsec since they're capships, so everyone's freighters are being automatically transferred to the nearest lowsec station at downtime". Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17443	Posted - 2016.02.22 17:06:58 - [1042] - 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.
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.02.22 17:11:45 - [1043] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17443	Posted - 2016.02.22 17:19:42 - [1044] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7231	Posted - 2016.02.22 18:09:59 - [1045] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Be careful what you ask for, though. CCP Fozzie: "In tomorrow's patch, we decided to realign cap ship stats so there's no more glaring deficiencies between hulls of roughly similar size. Oh, and that means no more freighters in highsec since they're capships, so everyone's freighters are being automatically transferred to the nearest lowsec station at downtime". I'd be OK with that. Whatever they decide to do, I'll still pay someone else to do my hauling (because it's peasant work) and I'll still mark up my prices to cover shipping costs. In the long run it's irrelevant to me if it has to be shipped in thousands of frigates or a single freighter. To be honest though I expect to see it the other way, with capital ships (not supers) being allowed into highsec once citadels come out. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.22 18:41:15 - [1046] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17444	Posted - 2016.02.22 18:54:56 - [1047] - 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.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.22 19:05:52 - [1048] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17444	Posted - 2016.02.22 19:10:17 - [1049] - 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.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.22 19:16:13 - [1050] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I don't care how hard you try I'm not going to chase you down this shitposting road AG always tries. Don't worry, I am not trying hard at all. I welcome any rebalance that better protects defenseless ships from gankers. Obviously you and other gankers call this "shitposting". So what, nobody cares.

Mad Abbat Talon Swarm 67	Posted - 2016.02.22 20:56:28 - [1051] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. guess what, mb Fozzie came back into sanity and trying to un-nerf freighters? but ofc, one must cry and protect easy farms in uedama and niarja.
Shova'k Caldari Provisions Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.02.22 23:28:51 - [1052] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Isk tanks dont exist in EVE and never should, its a **** way to balance things. 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. baltec1 wrote:** 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. 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4751	Posted - 2016.02.23 00:17:56 - [1053] - Quote Shova'k wrote: the insurance nerf did nothing the proof is in how rapment ganking is today.... So, you have not heard of the law of unintended consequences. Edit: Oh, and HS ganking has very little risk because you HS pansies won't make things risky for them. Shoot them in the face, don't way for the GCC. Their ships have no tanking mods, you could easily gank them with the exact same ship. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3112	Posted - 2016.02.23 04:13:52 - [1054] - Quote Ylmar wrote: baltec1 wrote: I don't care how hard you try I'm not going to chase you down this shitposting road AG always tries. Don't worry, I am not trying hard at all. I welcome any rebalance that better protects defenseless ships from gankers. Obviously you and other gankers call this "shitposting". So what, nobody cares. Yup. Carebears would set themselves on fire if they thought it would hurt gankers. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17445	Posted - 2016.02.23 06:26:15 - [1055] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 08:02:21 - [1056] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You can avoid all risk of being ganked just by using a single web ship. No you can't. baltec1 wrote: 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? 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. baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. baltec1 wrote: 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. Success! They will be less of a must have mod, and no ships appear to be broken. Good job CCP! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1263	Posted - 2016.02.23 08:13:40 - [1057] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: They will be less of a must have mod, and no ships appear to be broken. Good job CCP! Except they are still a 100% must have mod (setting aside dumbass hulltank snowflakes) for anything remotely serious. So...OP FAIL. Bad CCP, BAD. Literally failed at the first hurdle.
Anthar Thebess 1465	Posted - 2016.02.23 09:36:41 - [1058] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: They will be less of a must have mod, and no ships appear to be broken. Good job CCP! Except they are still a 100% must have mod (setting aside dumbass hulltank snowflakes) for anything remotely serious. So...OP FAIL. Bad CCP, BAD. Literally failed at the first hurdle. Sorry but if all ships need to have DC, why not keep it as it is, and just make DC passive module. Nothing will change in terms of resists and EHP - freighters and Jump Freighters incapable of mounting a DC - introduce one designed specially for them. 'Tears' Sansha Modified Damage Control; - 99% CPU requirements for Capital Industrial Ships. No free resits, but hard choices. Mount DCU or something else. I think that you agree with me, that if DC will be "still a 100% must have mod" then nothing will actually change. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17446	Posted - 2016.02.23 10:38:30 - [1059] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 11:35:20 - [1060] - Quote baltec1 wrote: red freight disagrees. No they don't, they simply keep themselves in a position where they are least likely to bo chosen as gank targets. They certainly don't consider themselves ungankable otherwise they wouldn't have collateral limits. baltec1 wrote: Lets have this viable number. Tell us how many it will take. What's a T1 cat, let's drastically undersell them and say 400 dps? Let's say a prepped system with about 25 seconds of gank time, 1 million EHP would take around 100 t1 catalysts, or like 150m-200m isk to gank. baltec1 wrote: 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. Nowhere near as many and nowhere near as big. To be clear though, your whining that you can't exploit the mechanics to gank for free and instead have to pay the aforementioned 200m isk to gank a 7b isk capital ship. Lol. baltec1 wrote: 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. I'll be dropping the DCU on a few of my ships, thus making it not a 100% must have mod. Why would I hate a playstyle I actively participate in? I'm just honest enough to know when the balance is tipped way in my favour and am willing to push for changes that would negatively affect me for the good of the game. Understand that I participate in ganking, and I pay for all of my hauling (as it's too time consuming to make it worth my time) so I will have tougher gank targets and less chance of getting a payout from the collateral (which I always set higher than my margins) when freighters get blapped. You can pretend this is about me hating a playstyle, but the reality is I'm just more willing to adapt to positive changes for the whole game than you. You just want to protect your easy gameplay. HTFU. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:12:38 - [1061] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No you can't red freight disagrees. And you would know that... how? Last time I checked your signature stated that you are a member of Pandemic Legion, not Red Frog Freight. Best leave it to RFF to make official statements for their alliance, don't you think?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1263	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:20:08 - [1062] - Quote Ylmar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No you can't red freight disagrees. And you would know that... how? Last time I checked your signature stated that you are a member of Pandemic Legion, not Red Frog Freight. Best leave it to RFF to make official statements for their alliance, don't you think? https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3mjixv/red_frog_freight_pilots_whats_it_like_being_space/cvg9z8t What's it like being that wrong? Here's a nice little tl;dr: Frog wrote: Flying ATK, with web escort is the way to go Freighter ganking has increased over 400% Since this time last year but the average is still approx 1500+ completed contract before you actually lose one (odds change of course if youre one of the guys that runs 20 afk freighters)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:35:40 - [1063] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Ylmar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No you can't red freight disagrees. And you would know that... how? Last time I checked your signature stated that you are a member of Pandemic Legion, not Red Frog Freight. Best leave it to RFF to make official statements for their alliance, don't you think? https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3mjixv/red_frog_freight_pilots_whats_it_like_being_space/cvg9z8t What's it like being that wrong? Here's a nice little tl;dr: Frog wrote: Flying ATK, with web escort is the way to go Freighter ganking has increased over 400% Since this time last year but the average is still approx 1500+ completed contract before you actually lose one (odds change of course if youre one of the guys that runs 20 afk freighters) OK, now read the full context of what has been written: Baltec: You can avoid all risk of being ganked just by using a single web ship. Me: No you can't. Baltec: red freight disagrees. Frog: the average is still approx 1500+ completed contract before you actually lose one Thus showing that you cannot avoid all risk, since red frog acknowledge the risk is still there. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1264	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:40:06 - [1064] - Quote You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you. Dumb people != risk
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:44:36 - [1065] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17446	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:44:51 - [1066] - 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 - [1067] - 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.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:51:37 - [1068] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:55:23 - [1069] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:58:14 - [1070] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you. Dumb people != risk And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds. Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yet still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case. baltec1 wrote: 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. But it's not 100%, is it? If someone were to say "I'll pay you $1 to perform task X, there's a 0.1% chance you will instantly die" most people wouldn't do it. No, my point is that you are applying the statistics of the group that is most versed in gank avoidance to the general population, ignoring the fact that they are avoiding a lot of their ganking by simply being less likely to be chosen against a member of the general population. If red frog did exactly what they do now, but there were no other freighters, their loss statistics would sharply rise, since they aren't immune to ganking, they are simply less favoured targets. In short, you're cherry picking biased stats. The reality is that this change will barely affect ganking, it will still be viable, it will still be profitable and it will still require a pretty low amount of effort from most of it's participants. Get over it. baltec1 wrote: Also please post these ships and their fittings which you will no longer be using a DCU on. CBA, not even at home. Just rest assured that I'll remove it from some ships. mainly ships that can afford to lose a bit of tank for a bit more speed, since removing the DC will be considerably less of a devastating blow to the ships stats. Just because you will still rely on it doesn't mean everyone will. It really depends on how much you value other ship stats. People who were right on the borderline between adding the DC vs another module will now choose the other module. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1264	Posted - 2016.02.23 12:58:37 - [1071] - 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. So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated? http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 45	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:02:51 - [1072] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you. Repetition sure is a well known rethorical device, but it does not generate truth.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1264	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:03:53 - [1073] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you. Dumb people != risk And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds. Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yest still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case. Contrived much? Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land. The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:10:58 - [1074] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: 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. So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated? http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php This was covered above. Those stats don't show 100% safety, and they take far more precautions than just a single webber. For example, a 50b isk collateral freight job won't be accepted. Those stats do in fact categorically disprove what baltec is claiming they prove. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Contrived much? Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land. The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent. Except of course having watched you jump from the other side of the gate, and having the machariel aligned and much closer than 15 AU away, they can certainly be on you inside the time a suicide tackle gives you. Once you've initiated the jump, they can already be on yur way, since they are already commited to enterign the system. Sure, you might suicide web the machariel, but then what if they have 2? What if they have another bumper at the next gate now that you are running without web support? The point is, that you can keep wildly increasing the amount of defensive measures taken by the hypothetical freighter pilot but they will still never reach 100% safety. In addition, EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a freighter can be caught, thus this change makes no difference so your entire point is moot as well as wrong. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 455	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:13:42 - [1075] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: they will still never reach 100% safety. In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:16:31 - [1076] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: they will still never reach 100% safety. In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Darth Terona Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 206	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:16:37 - [1077] - Quote im not seeing the up side of removing damage controls from my fits.. (those ships that cannot fit dcu) you mean freighters. (The impact is Freighters, but we like to pair buff and nerfs to suicide ganking to keep things in balance, and after the February Wreck HP change these ships can handle a bit more tank without the "predator and prey" environment being thrown out of whack.) ok.. so you changed wreck hp so it harder to deny gankers their loot.. and you want to compensate this by increasing the freighters hull resists to 30% across the board.. no problem. so.. for one aspect of the game.. your shaking up the entire meta... (not really.. everyone is going to fit dcu anyway.) solution. Give freighters a 7% hull resist per freighter level. leave DCU alone. yea its stale.. yea its a requirement on most pvp ships. yea after these changes, it will still be required... you are poking all of us for the sake of some freighter pilots.. just fix the issue at hand. or??!!! this isnt about freighters and it's just what you want to do! GREAT! dont pretend its to help freighters then... were smart. we can figure out who benifits most from your changes probably faster than you can. id bet my life savings on it actually. That all being said. Im looking forward to the change.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 46	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:18:41 - [1078] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:24:54 - [1079] - 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 - [1080] - 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.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1264	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:28:54 - [1081] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: 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. So are you telling us you believe this is all fabricated? http://red-frog.org/annual-report-2014.php This was covered above. Those stats don't show 100% safety, and they take far more precautions than just a single webber. For example, a 50b isk collateral freight job won't be accepted. Those stats do in fact categorically disprove what baltec is claiming they prove. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Contrived much? Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land. The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent. Except of course having watched you jump from the other side of the gate, and having the machariel aligned and much closer than 15 AU away, they can certainly be on you inside the time a suicide tackle gives them. Once you've initiated the jump, they can already be on their way, since you are already committed to entering the system. Sure, you might suicide web the machariel, but then what if they have 2? What if they have another bumper at the next gate now that you are running without web support? The point is, that you can keep wildly increasing the amount of defensive measures taken by the hypothetical freighter pilot but they will still never reach 100% safety. In addition, EHP has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a freighter can be caught, thus this change makes no difference so your entire point is moot as well as wrong. Oh so you missed that part where I said you dscan with the scout. I feel like you missed that.
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:29:07 - [1082] - Quote 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 455	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:34:03 - [1083] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters. Well I have no doubt you mostly understand EvE, but that 100% just bugs me because I know it isn't really true. You can have an instawarping interceptor that might still get smartbombed, even in highsec if someone is ballsy enough to attempt it. You can have absurd amounts of tank, but if you've become the recipient of someone's personal vendetta that has vast amounts of resources to throw around, they can still find a way to get you at an undock, a gate, or what-have you. It's just that your situational awareness (and I am speaking specifically about you) and your knowledge of the game mechanics and rules is probably top-notch. You would know not to autopilot, you would have insta-undock bookmarks, you wouldn't fit officer resist mods because you would know it would make you a gank target, etc. It's not that you're 100% safe, but you use everything at your disposal to keep yourself safe. And you'll probably never get ganked, and that's a good thing. But it's not that you're 100% safe, because so long as you're traveling between systems you are NOT perfectly safe, it's just that the threshold to make you unsafe is ridiculously high, so easier targets will be chosen instead. Working as intended. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Mazare Mircea Firefly Inc. 1	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:53:45 - [1084] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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 ? Quote: 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. 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. 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. 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'.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 13:54:42 - [1085] - 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 - [1086] - 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.
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2016.02.23 14:47:30 - [1087] - Quote 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.
Mazare Mircea Firefly Inc. 1	Posted - 2016.02.23 14:49:02 - [1088] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. I will not take the 3-5s, but i will admit it's probably around 6s with reactions and all that. So it's not 'no risk at all', now is it ? Quote: The mod will be 0.02% less effective than now, there will be no change. 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). Quote: 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. That was then, this is now. Balancing is not done completely around pen and paper, one has to consider the willingness of ppl to do something, that might not seem practical on pen and paper. A prime example is ganking empty freighters/jf's/marauders, which is somethings that CODE/goons will do with glee. The cost of the ships involved might not be made back in loot, but they will still do it for lols. At the base of it all, if CCP is allowing the attachement of this built in damage control to hulls such as freighters, it is because of freighter ganking proliferation.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 14:52:21 - [1089] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Oh so you missed that part where I said you dscan with the scout. I feel like you missed that. So what you are saying is that if you actively refuse to jump if there's a ship capable of bumping (which is a huge number of ships) within 14 AU of the gate and use a webber you are immune to ganking? Guess what, you're still wrong. The reason you are struggling to put your point across even though your are going to extreme lengths is because it's impossible to make a freighter ungankable (while still undocking it) at all, let alone limiting yourself to a single webber. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:11:02 - [1090] - 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.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1265	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:18:44 - [1091] - Quote I'll keep saying it until you get it. Dumb != risk Not taking preventative measures != risk. At the end of the day, RFF stats demonstrates that a properly flown freighter is exceedingly hard to kill. That alone speaks volumes and is actual...you evidence as opposed to the chicken little screaming that gankers are everywhere all of the time. I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:19:55 - [1092] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:26:55 - [1093] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I'll keep saying it until you get it. Dumb != risk Not taking preventative measures != risk. At the end of the day, RFF stats demonstrates that a properly flown freighter is exceedingly hard to kill. That alone speaks volumes and is actual...you evidence as opposed to the chicken little screaming that gankers are everywhere all of the time. And I'll keep saying it until you get it. All RFF stats demonstrate is that they can make themselves less appealing to be chosen as a gank target than alternative targets. If they were the only targets they would lose most of the ships that gankers attempted to gank, since freighters cannot be immune to ganking. The absolute best they can hope for is they make themselves unappealing enough that someone else gets ganked in their place. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking. No, you've not seen a single shred of data you accept. Any time anyone points out how incredibly cheap and easy it is to gank a freighter you whine on about it being the freighters fault thus the fact that it only costs you a hundred or two mil in ships to gank a capital ship is their fault not yours. At the end of the day CCP are happy to push through this change and happy with you having to adapt to it. Get over it. baltec1 wrote: If you fit a damage control now you will fit one after this change. I promise you 100% I won't. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1265	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:28:38 - [1094] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking. No, you've not seen a single shred of data you accept. Any time anyone points out how incredibly cheap and easy it is to gank a freighter you whine on about it being the freighters fault thus the fact that it only costs you a hundred or two mil in ships to gank a capital ship is their fault not yours. That is not data, that is whining. Get me some data that isn't whatever you burped up, but real actual data which shows us thank ganking needed another nerf. I mean, your entire post is a massive oxymoron. "Ganking is so cheap, so easy. It's super lucrative" this of course explains why so few freighters actually die. Don't you strain something with those mental gymnastics?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7232	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:48:26 - [1095] - Quote Good job at skipping out on all the parts you can't possibly disagree with, like RFF data not showing what you claimed. Morrigan LeSante wrote: That is not data, that is whining. Get me some data that isn't whatever you burped up, but real actual data which shows us thank ganking needed another nerf. I did earlier. Conservatively putting a T1 catalyst at 400 dps, with a 25s gank window on a 1m EHP freighter, it costs 150-200m to gank the ship, and all but two of the pilots involved need to take the fleet warp, lock target and press F1. And note that would be a 7b isk capital ship you'd be ganking even without cargo. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I mean, your entire post is a massive oxymoron. "Ganking is so cheap, so easy. It's super lucrative" this of course explains why so few freighters actually die. No, what explains why so freighters die is that few people actively perform ganking. I speculate that part of that is due to most EVE players liking a challenge and ganking being one of the least challenging mechanics in the game for the vast majority of players involved. Besides which, I have nothing to prove. CCP are putting in this change to the DC, and they see no problem increasing freighter EHP. I too see no problem increasing freighter EHP, and understand that the biggest part of ganking a freighter is finding it and getting it bumped. Burning the EHP is a matter of F1 monkeys. You seem to be of the impression that buffing the EHP is a massive shift against ganking, and it's up to you to prove that, which let's face it, you can't because it's horseshit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1265	Posted - 2016.02.23 15:52:53 - [1096] - Quote Sorry you're still sperging garbage. Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever, you ridiculous fool. Stop it. I said it's a nerf, all your hurf and bluster attempting to put words and lies in my mouth can't change the fact it's a nerf and one which has exactly zero data behind backing it up. Still no evidence it required a nerf. Not that I expect any from you or anyone else. Which is prettttty telling.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 16:04:45 - [1097] - Quote [/quote]I promise you 100% I won't.[/quote] Still waiting on those fits.
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 46	Posted - 2016.02.23 16:15:51 - [1098] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That is not data, that is whining. Coming from the ganker side of the fence, that is a very funny statement.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 16:29:40 - [1099] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Sorry you're still sperging garbage. Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever, you ridiculous fool. Stop it. I said it's a nerf, all your hurf and bluster attempting to put words and lies in my mouth can't change the fact it's a nerf and one which has exactly zero data behind backing it up. Still no evidence it required a nerf. Not that I expect any from you or anyone else. Which is prettttty telling. LOL. OK, so what stats exactly do you want provided? As far as I scan see you want us to provided stats but will only accept stats that support your argument. We say "ganking is easy and cheap" and you are like "prove it" so I show you the math and you are like "doesn't count because cost means nothing". At the end of the day we all know it's a minor nerf to ganking. We're OK with it, CCP are OK with it, you're the only group of people who aren't because you want to protect your easy playstyle, and the onus is on you to prove that it's a bad change. Also, as for proof that freighters need a buff, how about them being by far the lowest EHP capital ships? You say "Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever", well neither has the ability to gank ships. Ship EHP isn't balanced based on their ability to be ganked, they are balanced on their function and their status in line with other ships. Where they are in the ship tree, they should easily be doubled in EHP in truth, so a little increase like this is perfectly fine. baltec1 wrote: Still waiting on those fits. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
The Ginger Sith Ministry of War Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.02.23 16:37:46 - [1100] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you. Dumb people != risk And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds. Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yest still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case. Contrived much? Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land. The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent. the bumper just have to be off grid and pre-aligned and fleeted with the sucide tackler or there is a ting called a cloaking device you may have heard of it. which is far less then 15+ au lol more like 600 km to 900 km depending on the grid this is called a tactical bookmark so simple to make. also not every machariel you see will be a bumper people mission in them people pvp in them people do incursions in them people doing incursions have to travel from old finish incursion to new incursions through the gank pipe and guess what they are gank targets too :P so u may be scared of someone who is even more scared of getting ganked then you are lol. simple fact is there is no 100% guaranteed way to not be ganked and prolly never will be except for 1 NEVER UNDOCK! as many have stated ganking will only get marginaly more expensive and still be very viable and profitable just require a few more pilots and that will only be for when the target fits tank peopel will still go max cargo fits. gankers got their 15 k hp wrecks so for reals stop whining that it will take a few extra catalyst pilots to complete some of your ganks.

The Ginger Sith Ministry of War Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.02.23 16:42:41 - [1101] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Khan Wrenth wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: they will still never reach 100% safety. In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters. only way to be 100% safe is to never undock an officer fit titan with max fleet boosts to tank can be ganked in high sec (if the situation was possible) even a 1.0 with enough numbers and bumpers holding it altho the system would require ccp to prolly dedicate 90% of all server resources + all test server resources to that 1 system to prevent a black hole from forming in the server room from the numbers that it would require lol. the proof is in the burn jita and amarr events they gank even empty freighters and anything basicly that dares to fly that they can catch. but for reals ganking is such a low risk/safe and profitable thing this wont change that it is about time a small marginal buff is thrown to the victims for a change. learn to adapt rather then complain.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 455	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:07:35 - [1102] - Quote The Ginger Sith wrote: low reward high risk job of hauling freight Logical contradiction. It's low reward because it's almost impossible to get ganked because gankers are very few in number, in very few areas, and are easily defeated by simple teamwork or even going a little above and beyond solo. If it were really high risk, you'd see immense rewards because people need stuff shipped, and if their shipments were always getting wrecked, they'd up the reward to incentivize haulers to take on that risk. That it is low reward points directly to the very low risk involved. For all the hauling I've had to do solo through the infamous chokepoints, I've never seen CODE in local, or a gank fleet on gates, or even a bumper waiting near the gates. I see the occasional guy hovering around the gates scanning people, but that's been about it. There isn't nearly a problem as people seem to think there is. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:19:48 - [1103] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Logical contradiction. It's low reward because it's almost impossible to get ganked because gankers are very few in number, in very few areas, and are easily defeated by simple teamwork or even going a little above and beyond solo. Not entirely true, since there's a pretty low limit on what people will pay to ship rather than simply producing nearer their sale location. If shipping costs went up too much people would even be able to produce in Jita cheaper then elsewhere then shipping. All that increasing the risk of shipping would do with current mechanics is consolidate people further into the hubs. Khan Wrenth wrote: There isn't nearly a problem as people seem to think there is. Most people here aren't claiming there is a problem, just that a minor increase in EHP is well within reason. Most of the difficulty (I use that very loosely) of ganking comes from catching and bumping the freighter, not from the EHP grind, so the effect of increased EHP on number of ganks should be minimal. Gankers would just rather pretend the sky is falling and claim this DC change is a crippling assault on gankers. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:20:11 - [1104] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:22:21 - [1105] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:27:42 - [1106] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:38:27 - [1107] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Prove it, which fits. Opsec 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 455	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:48:29 - [1108] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: Prove it, which fits. Opsec 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. Well I'd like to offer up a tidbit: Long time ago I noticed some (not all) Amarr T2 ships, in very select situations, get better EHP from reinforcing their primary defense layer than they do from a DCU. So, that one's already in the bag and I'm not sure if other races have a similar situation going on in their T2 lineup. So there's that. Not sure if that satisfies Baltec1 or not, but I thought I'd offer it up. In the Cap Battery failure thread, I did say something which bears repeating. The Gallente really have too much hull in most of their ships to forego the DCU, because they're going to want to maximize the EHP in that beefy layer of hull they traditionally get. Caldari and Minnmitar are both shield races and would be foolish to forego extra shield resists from a lowslot, which works out MUCH better than the bit of extra shield HP they get from power diagnostic systems...and that leaves select Amarr hulls. But that's assuming these fits exist in a vacuum, which of course they do not. Fleets which have logi might opt to have their members reinforce more of their primary layer...in this case exclusively armor fleets since shield fleets would want the extra resists, as stated before. So, you might get less total EHP out of reinforcing your armor layer, but if you have more of your EHP IN your armor layer, that works better with the logi keeping you alive. But that's just my armchair theorycrafting on it. What the playerbase ends up doing, remains to be seen. But generally I have to agree with Baltec1, about 95% of all fits will probably still use a DCU unless the latest tiericide wave removed so much of their CPU that they can't fit it anymore and need a co-processor to run the rest of their ship. ...and that might actually be the point of this, actually. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4752	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:50:20 - [1109] - Quote Ylmar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Then perhaps you should quit "forgetting" so I don't have to keep on repeating myself to you. Repetition sure is a well known rethorical device, but it does not generate truth. Red Frog's own annual reports are not good enough? You sir are being deliberately obtuse and dogmatic. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:50:37 - [1110] - 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.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4752	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:58:59 - [1111] - 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. This is a load of errant nonsense that any statistician would laugh at. Yes, RFF really only went through Uedama 245 in 2014 and every single time they were ganked. [/sarcasm] The point is, even if we limited ourselves to those instances when RFF went through Uedama and Niajara we would doing the following, Gank rate = 245/a big number = a small....very small number. Maybe not 0.1% but probably less than 1%. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Ylmar Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure 47	Posted - 2016.02.23 18:15:27 - [1112] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17447	Posted - 2016.02.23 18:41:23 - [1113] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 19:50:41 - [1114] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4753	Posted - 2016.02.23 20:02:14 - [1115] - 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. First off zkill does not show us a trend. Nor does it show us what the rate of ganking is. Nor do I think it can show us that because it does not log freighters traveling around and not dying. For somebody who is complaining about the misuse of statistics these posts make you look completely incompetent and incoherent when it comes to statistics. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 7	Posted - 2016.02.23 20:13:28 - [1116] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. First off zkill does not show us a trend. Nor does it show us what the rate of ganking is. Nor do I think it can show us that because it does not log freighters traveling around and not dying. For somebody who is complaining about the misuse of statistics these posts make you look completely incompetent and incoherent when it comes to statistics. Easy to quote, hard to read it seems, I put it in bold for you so you can indeed see I stated exactly what you said. Also, how is it not a trend if the majority of high-sec freighter kills occurs in and around the pipes? To blame someone for misusing statistics, be sure to read properly first.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4753	Posted - 2016.02.23 20:38:44 - [1117] - Quote Crackforbreakfast wrote: Easy to quote, hard to read it seems, I put it in bold for you so you can indeed see I stated exactly what you said. Also, how is it not a trend if the majority of high-sec freighter kills occurs in and around the pipes? To blame someone for misusing statistics, be sure to read properly first. That is precisely what makes your posts so ironic and continue to highlight why you are a bumbling and incompetent when it comes to statistics. If you want to show that there is an upward trend in freighter ganking, then you have to look at the rate. Freighters ganked/number of freighters. We could look look at it on a per system basis as well, but again it is the rate we need. If the total number of freighters is increasing and the number of freighters ganked is also increasing one possibility is that there is no significant increase in the rate at which freighters get ganked. There is no trend. Further, the fact that most freighter ganks (note you need to take out freighters killed for other reasons such a war dec or just doing something damn dumb) take place in 2 systems is not a trend. You are confusing trend with tendency or likelihood. Yet another reason you sound not just incompetent but incoherent. What we want to know is, P(G\|X). That is the probability of being ganked given the characteristics X (think of it as a tuple where each element contains things like do you have a scout, does your scout have webs, do you use perches, etc.). We don't and cannot observe this. But we can observe: P(X\|G). That is what is the probability you had a certain characteristic type given you were ganked. Then we can, if we had the data, use Bayes Theorem to come up with P(G\|X), that is, P(G\|X) = P(X\|G)*[P(G)/P(X)]. We don't really have all this data. What we do have is data from RFF. So people have been pointing to it and making the following claim: RFF is prudent in its use of freighters. RFF does not die very much. They conclude that prudence reduces the risk of flying a freighter in regards to ganking. It is not at all an unreasonable conclusion to make. Pointing to an incomplete data set and asking why nobody is using that is just stupid beyond belief. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 413	Posted - 2016.02.23 20:59:28 - [1118] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: That is what is the probability you had a certain characteristic type given you were ganked. Then we can, if we had the data, use Bayes Theorem to come up with P(G\|X), that is, But, like, that's just a theorem, man. I somehow think that probability theory will be wasted on this audience :)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4754	Posted - 2016.02.23 21:06:05 - [1119] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: That is what is the probability you had a certain characteristic type given you were ganked. Then we can, if we had the data, use Bayes Theorem to come up with P(G\|X), that is, But, like, that's just a theorem, man. I somehow think that probability theory will be wasted on this audience :) You wound me sir...you are cutting deep into my Bayesian heart. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Crackforbreakfast Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 7	Posted - 2016.02.23 21:09:06 - [1120] - Quote 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7233	Posted - 2016.02.23 21:47:41 - [1121] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: RFF is prudent in its use of freighters. RFF does not die very much. They conclude that prudence reduces the risk of flying a freighter in regards to ganking. It is not at all an unreasonable conclusion to make. Of course it's an unreasonable conclusion to make. Again, that's because RFF are only able to have high survival rates by being less appealing than other targets, so the stats first off have absolutely no relation to the EHP of freighters and also are not representative of freighting in general, in fact they are quite the opposite. Here. Imagine you have a bowl of apples and a bowl of pears for feeding the hungry, and you know full well that people like both an equal amount. Every person that arrives takes two pieces of fruit, one from each bowl. As people arrive, the two bowls deplete at the same rate. One day you start putting mould and dirt around the edge of the bowl containing pears. Now some people aren't put off and take their two different fruits as normal, however most of the people now take two apples instead of one of each. At this point, the fruits overall are still depleting at exactly the same rate, but if you were to look only at the pears and form an opinion over how much people like fruit from that single statistic, you'd get the impression they don't like fruit. If however the apples ran out, people would still take the pears as they are hungry and need to eat. This is exactly the problem with the RFF stats. They are not only skewed because of the additional safety precautions that their pilots take, but because pilots who aren't in RFF which we don't have stats for are likely killed at a much higher rate, because when given the choice between the two, non-RFF pilots are generally more appealing. In order for RFF to achieve their level of safety, other haulers have to be destroyed in their place. Again though, when discussing this change it's entirely irrelevant, since EHP is not what kept those pilots from being shot down. Reduced cargo and webbing alts were much bigger factors, and so the increase in EHP is not relevant. It's just another way for people who want to refuse to adapt to twist the subject to push their agenda. They'll just have to learn to be better EVE players and get over it. I'm sure they'll manage. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3116	Posted - 2016.02.23 21:51:55 - [1122] - 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. So after all that, you're just saying that you are more likely to be ganked in uedama and niarja at times gankers are active than the rest of hi-sec? Well no ****. Another incredible contribution by an anti-ganker. If only there was a way to not travel in those systems whilst not afk... EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4759	Posted - 2016.02.23 22:19:03 - [1123] - 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. Why is it not valid. You say this as if it is trivially obvious. Are you telling us RFF never go through one of these camped pipes? Ever? And offering collateral makes the pilots more prudent....which in turn impacts their rate of being ganked. Thank you for proving my point. Finally, has anyone disputed that ganks usually take place in the pipes through Uedama and Niarja? And ganking is not low cost. It is relatively low cost. That is, 200 million ISK in catalysts to kill a freighter full of 5 billion ISK of goodies is why ganking is "low cost" the costs for ganking is low relative to the gains. And the reason why the gains are high is because a player put 5 billion ISK in a big fat slow moving ship that has no offensive capabilities without even a single ship for an escort. There is a word for that: idiot. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17460	Posted - 2016.02.24 08:58:27 - [1124] - 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 - [1125] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7253	Posted - 2016.02.24 19:27:54 - [1126] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chip Flux Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 48	Posted - 2016.02.24 19:42:29 - [1127] - Quote Why must we look forward to your changes with trepidation? Why must you always upset your customers with these horrible changes? This is now an attack on energy neutralizers and the core gameplay Just stop the stupid
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4765	Posted - 2016.02.24 21:01:39 - [1128] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? He took his ball and went home once he realized he could not answer that question and that it was fundamental to the discussion. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 408	Posted - 2016.02.24 21:27:33 - [1129] - Quote Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)? Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4765	Posted - 2016.02.25 05:12:05 - [1130] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)? Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true? That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2222	Posted - 2016.02.25 05:51:25 - [1131] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)? Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true? That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements. I am not sure this will be case. Nobody, even CODE., goes out to hunt empty freighters. A freighter with cargo will always be preferred over an empty one all other things being equal and empty freighters are exploded primarily just because nothing else is available to keep the fleet busy, or because the pilot is red to their coalition in the case of Miniluv. Both reasons are still valid and any increase in cost will be absorbed to keep moral up, or to serve a greater sandbox reason and empty freighters will still explode. This change will have little effect as long as the large ganking groups still have enough pilots to be over the group size threshold needed to field enough DPS. In fact, with PL now seeming to be experimenting with ganking, and even ganking empty freighters, it appears even more empty freighters might be dying in the near future. All this does is lock out smaller groups even more from choosing to hunt freighters in highsec. The fundamental problem can't balance ganking with EHP beyond a certain point when players can just bring more pilots. All that does is restrict the ability to attack in highsec to the largest groups in the game, and given the wide disparity in group sizes, you end up eventually locking out most players from using the mechanic. How is it fair that Goonswarm can field sufficient pilots to gank your freighters, but your 30-man corp now no longer has enough people to meet this arbitrary DPS number to attack their freighters back? I mean, if you get in a real fight with such a size difference you should be crushed, but you don't even have the ability to try and force a response because of an absurdly high EHP wall.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4765	Posted - 2016.02.25 05:53:36 - [1132] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Is it me or will this change act as a nerf to indiscriminate freighter ganking, whilst probably allowing the clever/selective gankers to carry on pretty much as normal (with more needed per gank)? Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true? That will likely be the effect. Ganking empty freighters will likely go the way of the dodo, and ganking groups will look for freighters that meet some minimal requirements. I am not sure this will be case. Nobody, even CODE., goes out to hunt empty freighters. A freighter with cargo will always be preferred over an empty one all other things being equal and empty freighters are exploded primarily just because nothing else is available to keep the fleet busy, or because the pilot is red to their coalition in the case of Miniluv. Both reasons are still valid and any increase in cost will be absorbed to keep moral up, or to serve a greater sandbox reason and empty freighters will still explode. This change will have little effect as long as the large ganking groups still have enough pilots to be over the group size threshold needed to field enough DPS. In fact, with PL now seeming to be experimenting with ganking, and even ganking empty freighters, it appears even more empty freighters might be dying in the near future. All this does is lock out smaller groups even more from choosing to hunt freighters in highsec. The fundamental problem can't balance ganking with EHP beyond a certain point when players can just bring more pilots. All that does is restrict the ability to attack in highsec to the largest groups in the game, and given the wide disparity in group sizes, you end up eventually locking out most players from using the mechanic. How is it fair that Goonswarm can field sufficient pilots to gank your freighters, but your 30-man corp now no longer has enough people to meet this arbitrary DPS number to attack their freighters back? I mean, if you get in a real fight with such a size difference you should be crushed, but you don't even have the ability to try and force a response because of an absurdly high EHP wall. 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. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17460	Posted - 2016.02.25 06:16:04 - [1133] - 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.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2222	Posted - 2016.02.25 06:16:51 - [1134] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17460	Posted - 2016.02.25 06:44:16 - [1135] - 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.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 415	Posted - 2016.02.25 07:06:13 - [1136] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Also - has anyone yet done the maths on how long a gankalyst will now last against concord? Or are the rumours of concord doing a 5th damage type true? Er mate, you know that CONCORD has infinite strength ECM, right? As soon as you're locked by concord, you're out. (Exception: smartbombing battleships with cap boosters.)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4765	Posted - 2016.02.25 07:18:19 - [1137] - 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. Right, ganking an empty freighter does happen. After this change my guess it will become far, far less common. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 790	Posted - 2016.02.25 07:40:38 - [1138] - Quote Crackforbreakfast wrote: ... furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral... Which was also corrected here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6340733#post6340733 The maximum collateral only relates to the size of individual contracts accepted. It has no bearing on how those packages are transported and delivered by individual pilots, who are not actually in RFF. Most are in NPC Corps and carry RFF contracted packages alongside other contracts. It's totally down to how individual pilots minimise risk and pilots transporting RFF contracts pass through Uedama and Niarja safely many times every single day. There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4765	Posted - 2016.02.25 07:48:42 - [1139] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: Crackforbreakfast wrote: ... furthermore it has been explained multiple times why RFF is able to keep their ganks down, for example the 1Bil collateral... Which was also corrected here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6340733#post6340733 The maximum collateral only relates to the size of individual contracts accepted. It has no bearing on how those packages are transported and delivered by individual pilots, who are not actually in RFF. Most are in NPC Corps and carry RFF contracted packages alongside other contracts. It's totally down to how individual pilots minimise risk and pilots transporting RFF contracts pass through Uedama and Niarja safely many times every single day. There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be. Blah, blah, blah. Please do not distract the dim witted with facts, it merely upsets them and causes them to ask their mom's for more hot pockets. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7265	Posted - 2016.02.25 08:00:39 - [1140] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 08:06:20 - [1141] - 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 464	Posted - 2016.02.25 08:08:49 - [1142] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be. I don't think it's been said here yet, and I've been waiting for it, but it still hasn't come up. So I'll say it. I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, because I think it's bad form. But good god, someone actually said this. Lucas Kell wrote: Of course it's an unreasonable conclusion to make. Again, that's because RFF are only able to have high survival rates by being less appealing than other targets, so the stats first off have absolutely no relation to the EHP of freighters and also are not representative of freighting in general, in fact they are quite the opposite. ...This is exactly the problem with the RFF stats. They are not only skewed because of the additional safety precautions that their pilots take... ... Reduced cargo and webbing alts were much bigger factors... This is what I hear when he says that: RFF are only able to have high survival rates by knowing how the game is played, being aware of their surroundings, using the in-game tools at their disposal, and flying smart. So of course, their survival rates can't be taken into account. I have never in my time on these forums, seen a posting that so radically demonstrates that a person has no idea what game they're playing. This is EvE. We have forum signatures like "Delete the Weak", and "Beware the Falcon Punch". The entire idea is that you're supposed to play smart. Lucas, the problem isn't that RFF has great survival rates, the problem is that everyone is careless, lazy, ignorant, or stupid. There are instances where you can say an outlier doesn't matter statistically. Like say, if RFF were actually in Cahoots with the entire Blue Doughnut of Nullsec, and each freighter had a full escort service to and from it's destinations. Then you can point to two things which would invalidate their numbers. 1: They're radically outside the norm. And 2: They have tools or resources most people can't feasibly manage. For the purposes of attempting to ignore their data, both conditions have to be met. If it's inside the norm, it doesn't matter because it's not an outlier. If they have and use the same resources everyone else has, then it's still an even playing field. And that's the problem with Lucas trying to dismiss the data. There is no space wizardry at work at RFF, there is no CCP oversight of their ships, their ships do not fly with an Concord escort. They simply fly smart. That's it. They don't even do it as a group; as it's been pointed out that many are just individual pilots in NPC groups with a couple friends (or no friends at all, and they still manage). Lucas' post is, by far, the clearest call for EvE to be the oft-mocked "Hello Kitty Online". In one simple post, he outright dismissed the foundational principles of EvE, of flying smart, and advocated that the standards should be lowered to meet the lowest common denominator. That game mechanics should revolve around protecting the weak, instead of letting them learn from their mistakes. I jokingly said earlier in a post that "Lucas finally understands EvE!" Contrary to how it looked, it wasn't a personal attack against him, since at that point I held no personal views towards him. He just teed up a nice shot at himself with a statement about "100% safety", and I took the opportunity. But since he made that above statement I'm convinced he's playing the wrong game. He stated that people playing the game well should be dismissed. Any time he speaks up again and tries to make a case for anything in this game, that quote of his must be presented. Not by one person, not by a group of people, but every single person reading his post should remind him of the foul he committed in his post. Lucas, word to the wise. If you want to debate the merits of freighter EHP by virtue of their relation to other similarly-sized ships, that's reasonable and I'm not harping on you for that. But if you want to debate on the rarity of their ganking, you cannot dismiss RFF data under these terms. If flying dumb and getting killed is a factor in nerfing something, then tomorrow morning everything is nerfed and all you have left is festival launchers. That's it. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1286	Posted - 2016.02.25 08:36:02 - [1143] - Quote ^^^ rekt. I believe it the colloquial. An excellent post Khan, excellent.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2222	Posted - 2016.02.25 08:50:38 - [1144] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Right, ganking an empty freighter does happen. After this change my guess it will become far, far less common. And as I say, I don't think so. Ganking empty freighters already has a highly negative ISK outcome. FC's who do it today do so because they think the benefits of that action outweigh the loss in ISK either immediately, or in the long run. Gankers are not morons, blindly suiciding their ships into the first freighter they see. Each and every empty freighter was ganked for a reason. Sometimes that reason is a trivial as an FC having a couple dozen people waiting for something to kill, but the pressure to shoot something and keep the troops entertained will remain after this change. Sure, increasing that cost slightly changes the calculation a little, but the reasons why they do it today will still be there after the March patch and FCs are still going to make empty freighters explode on occasion when they think it is in their interest. Empty freighters are not going to be any safer from a desperate CODE. FC looking for something, anything to shoot, or from Miniluv or PL looking to harass haulers working for their enemies. The sandbox is still going to provide a reason beyond ISK to shoot them. All this does is lock small groups out of attempting to attack, and increases the limit of what you can carry safely by raising the costs for those who attack for profit. That will make freighters who were on the margin of profitability less likely to be attacked by a pure pirate and thus safer, but it will do nothing for the empty freighters that are attacked for reasons unrelated to direct profit. I fully expect people to be whining here in three months about how it is "griefing" that empty freighters are still being killed, oblivious to the fact that Miniluv exploded some of them because they were hauling for an enemy of the Imperium, or that the CODE. protection racket model requires them to occasionally back up their extortion threats with an act of pure violence. Or perhaps it was completely personal and someone just mouthed off a little too much. This is a sandbox people, and that means there are reasons to do things (including exploding empty freighters) that are not obvious on the surface or motivated strictly by ISK/h. While with changes like this CCP seems hellbent on cranking up safety to the point nothing interesting or emergent can happen, at least for now we are suppose to invent the reasons to do stuff, including shooting each other's freighters. TL;DR: It's not always about the ISK.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7265	Posted - 2016.02.25 09:05:23 - [1145] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: This is what I hear when he says that: RFF are only able to have high survival rates by knowing how the game is played, being aware of their surroundings, using the in-game tools at their disposal, and flying smart. So of course, their survival rates can't be taken into account. So you're saying comprehension isn't your thing? Yes, RFF play the game well which is why they have a reduced chance of being ganked. But there's multiple issues here, the most important issue with this is: Lucas Kell wrote: They are not only skewed because of the additional safety precautions that their pilots take, but because pilots who aren't in RFF which we don't have stats for are likely killed at a much higher rate, because when given the choice between the two, non-RFF pilots are generally more appealing. In order for RFF to achieve their level of safety, other haulers have to be destroyed in their place. See that's the part you missed off of that quote. If RFF were the only gank targets in the game, they would be killed at a much much MUCH higher rate than they are. They aren't surviving because pro players can survive, they are surviving because given the choice between targets the gankers pick the softest and most valuable ones. Also, the game isn't balanced around the best players, it's balanced around the average player. You think that it should be brought down to a level where RFF suffer far more frequent lossses? All that would do is put of all those players who aren't super pro at flying haulers for no isk, and laughably it'd be supporting another group of equally low skilled players. 99% of gankers are F1 monkeys, half of which you have to remind every time to turn their bloody safety button off and load ammo. Why should the game be twisted to cater to them? Or are you one of these "they do PvP therefore don't have to have balance" guys? Khan Wrenth wrote: And that's the problem with Lucas trying to dismiss the data. There is no space wizardry at work at RFF, there is no CCP oversight of their ships, their ships do not fly with an Concord escort. They simply fly smart. That's it. They don't even do it as a group; as it's been pointed out that many are just individual pilots in NPC groups with a couple friends (or no friends at all, and they still manage). I can quite happily dismiss the data without any problems thanks. Here a fact for you, it's impossible to make a freighter ungankable short of refusing to undock it. The problem with the stats is that people like baltec are pointing at them claiming that because their loss percentages are small that is representative of the level of danger a freighter pilot is exposed to. But it's not, and if you can't understand that I'm not going to waste my life explaining it to you repeatedly because chances are we'll run into plenty of other basic knowledge barriers along the way. Let's just say that the probability of a professional taxi driver causing an accident is not representative of the probability of a member of the general population causing one. Khan Wrenth wrote: Lucas' post is, by far, the clearest call for EvE to be the oft-mocked "Hello Kitty Online". In one simple post, he outright dismissed the foundational principles of EvE, of flying smart, and advocated that the standards should be lowered to meet the lowest common denominator. That game mechanics should revolve around protecting the weak, instead of letting them learn from their mistakes. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that most gankers atre also the lowest common denominator and the game should not cater to them either. At the end of the day you guys are crying because two capital ships will have increased EHP and still not be remotely close to other capital ships EHP levels, then you're pointing at people who avoid ganks by not being chosen as targets - making their EHP complete irrelevant - and claiming that somehow justifies giving freighters a relative nerf to other ships. Khan Wrenth wrote: He stated that people playing the game well should be dismissed. LOL. Dismissing cherry picked stats and dismissing the actual players are two different things. At the end of the day I can voice my opinion as much as any other and while you'd like to think that you are somehow above me and can simply pretend I have no idea what I'm talking about, it's simply not true. I somehow doubt that CCP are going to ignore their stats (since they will have the complete picture, not just RFF) and ignore the fact that EHP is a minor factor in ganking just to cater to a bunch of cyring whiners that can;t adapt to small changes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7265	Posted - 2016.02.25 09:06:50 - [1146] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: ^^^ rekt. I believe it the colloquial. An excellent post Khan, excellent. Hardly, it was just a guy going "you're stupid!" in a very verbose manner. Pretty much everything he said was opinion based on misinterpretation of a post with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Ed: And let's face it, the change is still going ahead because CCP also know that an increase to EHP is a minor factor in ganking and that players with even an average skill level will adapt. Hell, if you don't believe CCP and you don't believe me, Pedro has pretty much stated the same. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mag's Azn Empire 21330	Posted - 2016.02.25 09:16:23 - [1147] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: ^^^ rekt. I believe it the colloquial. An excellent post Khan, excellent. Hardly, it was just a guy going "you're stupid!" in a very verbose manner. Pretty much everything he said was opinion based on misinterpretation of a post with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Not only did he hit the nail on the head, we also got to see more ironic posts from you, as a result. I for one want you to keep posting, so please don't stop. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7346	Posted - 2016.02.25 09:28:44 - [1148] - Quote Mag's wrote: Not only did he hit the nail on the head, we also got to see more ironic posts from you, as a result. I for one want you to keep posting, so please don't stop. Golly gosh, well clearly with you guys being in support of him, he must be right! It's not like you guys band together to attack people who's opinions oppose yours right? ...Right? (glad I can keep you entertained) The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 10:56:26 - [1149] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 11:03:55 - [1150] - Quote 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. Again though this is just you guys trying to derail the thread because you don't want to adapt to change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 11:07:01 - [1151] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 11:10:25 - [1152] - Quote baltec1 wrote: And where is the evidence for that? You got me, I don't have buckets of stats for a hypothetical situation. I guess that means you are right, RFF pilots are impossible to kill and even if gankers had only them as targets they wouldn't lose any more ships than they currently do, because they are such uber ninjas. It's not at all that a guy in a cargo expanded freighter with 5b in cargo is more appealing than a triple bulkhead 1b cargo pilot. Shame that's still irrelevant to this change, and you'll still have to get over it and adapt. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 11:33:13 - [1153] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 11:54:03 - [1154] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Except it's not though. You've got partial stats, which you are extrapolating to cover players it does not cover, 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. The only reason you're even demanding stats and claiming stats trump facts is becuase you know they can't be provided. I mean you're not a dumb guy, so yuo know full well that RFF would be killed much more frequently if they were the only targets, and you know that their survival almost never comes down to their EHP, it comes down to evasion, yet still you put those stats forward as a reason to not touch EHP. And again, it really doesn't matter, because you can scream until you are red in the face, but CCP do in fact know that this change is a minor impact to gankers and that they will adapt, they've even said as much, so flailing about pretending that a boost to EHP is the end of ganking isn't going to get anywhere, except perhaps half the posts in this thread binned again. tl;dr, change is coming, adapt or die. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 12:45:51 - [1155] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 12:53:49 - [1156] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. It covers some of the use of freighters. Their stats are no more representative of freighters as a whole as my codes stats are of ganking as a whole. baltec1 wrote: There shouldn't be a way to make freighters ungankable. And there isn't, and hopefully never will be, and this change won't change that. baltec1 wrote: I demand evidence to back up any argument. That you have never supplied any is rather telling. No you don't, you demand evidence when you think it will benefit you to demand it, then when it swings the other way you are happy to rely on your experience and opinion alone, demanding that others then still provide evidence to disprove you. At the end of the day, the question is simple. Do you believe that if the only remaining freighter pilots were RFF pilots that the losses they sustain would increase, decrease or remain the same? I'd wager quite heavily that their losses would increase as I don't believe gankers would just cease ganking. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 12:58:14 - [1157] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 13:03:00 - [1158] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 13:06:22 - [1159] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 14:17:01 - [1160] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 14:52:40 - [1161] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 15:26:44 - [1162] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So you agree their actions make them safer. 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. Again though it's all beside the point because most actions taken to reduce ganking have nothing to do with EHP, they have to do with reducing values, avoid gank hotspots and flying with web support, so their increase to EHP due to this change is negligible. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17461	Posted - 2016.02.25 15:34:02 - [1163] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 15:38:13 - [1164] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: There is nothing special about a RFF package that protects it from being lost in a gank. The only thing special is that the pilots don't think we need special treatment. We look after our own safety, just as it should be. I don't think it's been said here yet, and I've been waiting for it, but it still hasn't come up. So I'll say it. I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, because I think it's bad form. But good god, someone actually said this. Lucas Kell wrote: Of course it's an unreasonable conclusion to make. Again, that's because RFF are only able to have high survival rates by being less appealing than other targets, so the stats first off have absolutely no relation to the EHP of freighters and also are not representative of freighting in general, in fact they are quite the opposite. ...This is exactly the problem with the RFF stats. They are not only skewed because of the additional safety precautions that their pilots take... ... Reduced cargo and webbing alts were much bigger factors... This is what I hear when he says that: RFF are only able to have high survival rates by knowing how the game is played, being aware of their surroundings, using the in-game tools at their disposal, and flying smart. So of course, their survival rates can't be taken into account. I have never in my time on these forums, seen a posting that so radically demonstrates that a person has no idea what game they're playing. This is EvE. We have forum signatures like "Delete the Weak", and "Beware the Falcon Punch". The entire idea is that you're supposed to play smart. Lucas, the problem isn't that RFF has great survival rates, the problem is that everyone is careless, lazy, ignorant, or stupid. There are instances where you can say an outlier doesn't matter statistically. Like say, if RFF were actually in Cahoots with the entire Blue Doughnut of Nullsec, and each freighter had a full escort service to and from it's destinations. Then you can point to two things which would invalidate their numbers. 1: They're radically outside the norm. And 2: They have tools or resources most people can't feasibly manage. For the purposes of attempting to ignore their data, both conditions have to be met. If it's inside the norm, it doesn't matter because it's not an outlier. If they have and use the same resources everyone else has, then it's still an even playing field. And that's the problem with Lucas trying to dismiss the data. There is no space wizardry at work at RFF, there is no CCP oversight of their ships, their ships do not fly with an Concord escort. They simply fly smart. That's it. They don't even do it as a group; as it's been pointed out that many are just individual pilots in NPC groups with a couple friends (or no friends at all, and they still manage). Lucas' post is, by far, the clearest call for EvE to be the oft-mocked "Hello Kitty Online". In one simple post, he outright dismissed the foundational principles of EvE, of flying smart, and advocated that the standards should be lowered to meet the lowest common denominator. That game mechanics should revolve around protecting the weak, instead of letting them learn from their mistakes. I jokingly said earlier in a post that "Lucas finally understands EvE!" Contrary to how it looked, it wasn't a personal attack against him, since at that point I held no personal views towards him. He just teed up a nice shot at himself with a statement about "100% safety", and I took the opportunity. But since he made that above statement I'm convinced he's playing the wrong game. He stated that people playing the game well should be dismissed. Any time he speaks up again and tries to make a case for anything in this game, that quote of his must be presented. Not by one person, not by a group of people, but every single person reading his post should remind him of the foul he committed in his post. Lucas, word to the wise. If you want to debate the merits of freighter EHP by virtue of their relation to other similarly-sized ships, that's reasonable and I'm not harping on you for that. But if you want to debate on the rarity of their ganking, you cannot dismiss RFF data under these terms. If flying dumb and getting killed is a factor in nerfing something, then tomorrow morning everything is nerfed and all you have left is festival launchers. That's it. Well it is Lucas and he is special. I have him blocked, but seeing your post I went back to see if he was referencing my post. Of course it is a reasonable conclusion. People point the the 1 billion collateral...well that is a signal that RFF is prudent. Prudence leads to less risk. Less risk, in this context, is less ganking. It is just that simple in the end. Taking precautions against ganking leads to less ganking. The best known and probably biggest commercial hauling concern in the game do not get ganked much. Why? Lucas would have us believe it is magic, in reality RFF is just prudent. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 15:48:20 - [1165] - 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. This was precisely my point Lucas. RFF is prudent. Other pilots are not. Going after the dump pilots takes less effort and can get you more reward. I know you'll say something like, "If everyone plays this way, why the ganking rate would go back up for everyone including RFF." Maybe, but the thing is you have no evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg. Squat. Zero. All you have is supposition. And that is not evidence. I know you think it is evidence, but it isn't. First, you have to provide evidence that everyone is going to play just like RFF. That option is already in game and yet it does not happen. Then we'd have to wait to see what happens to the rate of ganking. I personally think you have a hidden assumption you are not stating: that the ganking rate will go right back up to where it was before everyone started flying prudently. Quote: 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. No, baltec1 is looking at the evidence. You on the other hand are arguing about data we could have obtained but did not. You are, as usual, arguing via magical thinking. "Well if we had this data, I'd be right." That is simply errant nonsense from somebody so arrogant and full of himself he can't admit he is wrong. The problem, since you won't (probably can't) see it, is that everyone can say that. "Well if I had data that supported my position, well...I'd be right." Great. yeah. Complete sophistry and we really should be looking at the data that we actually have not playing make believe. Now you guys know why I block Lucas Kell, you can't argue with him. He is a total fantasist, living in his own bubble where he is super awesome and everyone else is super dumb. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 16:54:04 - [1166] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. The stats are taken from the single largest freighter organisation in eve. Who else out there is a better choice? 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. Teckos Pech wrote: All you have is supposition. And that is not evidence. I know you think it is evidence, but it isn't. No, I don;t think it's evidence, I just things it's a pretty solid prediction. At the end of the day most things going on here we have no evidence for. Even RFFs stats are uncorroborated stats from a group looking to entice customers about a subset of haulers which mean precisely nothing when trying to apply them to people outside of that group. Teckos Pech wrote: First, you have to provide evidence that everyone is going to play just like RFF. No, I don;t since baltec is doing that for me. He's claiming that everyone can achieve that level of safety, so he's setting up the hypothetical situation in which everyone acts like RFF. Since we know that RFF pilots can be ganked (as evidenced by their losses) we know that they aren't beyond the reach of gankers, so the question becomes, if all pilots act like RFF pilots, will the amount of gankers drop so substantially that RFFs current loss rate would become the general loss rate for freighters. I don't believe it would, but perhaps I have too much faith in the backbone of gankers. Teckos Pech wrote: No, baltec1 is looking at the evidence. Yes, he's looking at the evidence of a specific group and making a broad statement about everyone outside of that group as well as inside it. Further he's making a statement which makes no sense in context because the increase in EHP will have very little effect on the choice of targets, only the number of F1 pressers needed, which i why there's no point in continuing and endless debate about how hard done by gankers are. Adapt or die. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17464	Posted - 2016.02.25 17:07:07 - [1167] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7353	Posted - 2016.02.25 18:10:06 - [1168] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 18:40:30 - [1169] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: First, you have to provide evidence that everyone is going to play just like RFF. No, I don;t since baltec is doing that for me. He's claiming that everyone can achieve that level of safety, so he's setting up the hypothetical situation in which everyone acts like RFF. Since we know that RFF pilots can be ganked (as evidenced by their losses) we know that they aren't beyond the reach of gankers, so the question becomes, if all pilots act like RFF pilots, will the amount of gankers drop so substantially that RFFs current loss rate would become the general loss rate for freighters. I don't believe it would, but perhaps I have too much faith in the backbone of gankers. That is incorrect Lucas. baltec1 is making no such claim. He is pointing out that if they did fly as prudently as RFF then they'd reduce their risk of ganking. They may not get it as low RFF currently does, but it would likely improve dramatically. Your point is: If every freighter pilot were as prudent as RFF we would not observe the current ganking rate for RFF. Which may or may not be true. Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: No, baltec1 is looking at the evidence. Yes, he's looking at the evidence of a specific group and making a broad statement about everyone outside of that group as well as inside it. Further he's making a statement which makes no sense in context because the increase in EHP will have very little effect on the choice of targets, only the number of F1 pressers needed, which i why there's no point in continuing and endless debate about how hard done by gankers are. Adapt or die. No, he is pointing out that prudence when flying a freighter can reduce risk as we see with RFF. There is no need to buff the EHP of freighters to insulate those who are imprudent. CCP Fozzie's "justification" is nothing short of stupid errant nonsense. You are quite wrong and basing your conclusions on, literally, nothing. baltec1 and others pointing to the RFF data at least have evidence. Your hypothesis my be correct, but it may not be correct. And even if it is, the ganking rate for prudent use of freighters may go from 0.1% to 0.2%--that is, people would still benefit from being prudent. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17466	Posted - 2016.02.25 19:05:15 - [1170] - 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7354	Posted - 2016.02.25 19:36:07 - [1171] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: They may not get it as low RFF currently does, but it would likely improve dramatically. Ah, except he's not, he's saying that RFF is what the risk level of hauling is on which design decisions should be made. Teckos Pech wrote: If every freighter pilot were as prudent as RFF we would not observe the current ganking rate for RFF. Which may or may not be true. Which do you believe it to be? Do you think that an RFF pilot is more likely to be chosen as a target and more likely to be ganked if there were no pilots flying around like big floating targets screaming "gank me"? I can;t say for certain, but I'd take a pretty good estimate that RFF would suddenly find themselves at the end of more crosshairs, and since you can't make an ungankable freighter, the chances are they would lose more ships. Teckos Pech wrote: No, he is pointing out that prudence when flying a freighter can reduce risk as we see with RFF. No, that's not what he's pointing out at all. If he were simply saying "flying smarter reduces your chages of being ganked" there would be no argument, but the problem is he's saying RFF get ganked X% of the time therefore the chances of losing a hauler to a gank are X% unless you are stupid". He then uses that as a reason to give a relative nerf to freighters. Teckos Pech wrote: There is no need to buff the EHP of freighters to insulate those who are imprudent. CCP Fozzie's "justification" is nothing short of stupid errant nonsense. Not a huge need, no, but freighters are out of line with other capitals anyway, ganking is pretty damn easy and cheap, and since it's a such a mundane and unrewarding task (so much so that CCP have already laid out plans to get NPC doing it) that giving them a bit more of a buffer I fully support. I definitely don;t see any reason to buff every ship around them and purposely exclude them. Teckos Pech wrote: You are quite wrong Really, it shocks me that you of all people would claim unilaterally that I am wrong. Oh wait, no it doesn't. I could claim water is wet and you'd go into a 15 page rant about how wrong I am. Yes, they have evidence, flawed evidence, incomplete evidence, irrelevant evidence possible even made up evidence as RFF put their own figures on there. Still though, doesn't make a blind bit of difference because it's all off topic and the change is coming regardless. Gankers saying "but we'll need to put in marginally more effort" are unlikely to get anywhere. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7354	Posted - 2016.02.25 19:38:26 - [1172] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Not really though, is it. Because now I can kit out a ship with more damage for example and keep a 33% resist buffer on my hull. That's clearly not the same. Ofthe thousands of different fitting choices being made each day I have no doubt that some of them will no longer have a DCU. Whether that would be your choice is irrelevant because different people have different limits on what they want each of their ships stats to be. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17466	Posted - 2016.02.25 20:02:49 - [1173] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Not really though, is it. . Yes it is, its right ******* there.
The Ginger Sith Ministry of War Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.02.25 20:18:47 - [1174] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. as for all this RFF stats applies to the general public that is like taking an alley that is a high traffic short cut for people during the day when its light out and lots around so criminals are afraid to do anything to late at night when its dark and very few around then the criminals jump and mug people passing through. same logic applies to RFF and the general freight population RFF just avoids the dangerous alley (gank pipes) when the gankers are active limits their cargo value and fits tank. this is actually simple logic that people employ in real life to avoid dangerous areas to protect their purse/wallet. so of course RFF lose less freighters it is called being smart. real life trucking routes of high value goods avoid areas where the risk of being hi-jacked is high hmm i wonder why they would do such a thing.... before you automatically use stats as a general application you should prolly realize that never works.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 20:37:48 - [1175] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: If every freighter pilot were as prudent as RFF we would not observe the current ganking rate for RFF. Which may or may not be true. Which do you believe it to be? Do you think that an RFF pilot is more likely to be chosen as a target and more likely to be ganked if there were no pilots flying around like big floating targets screaming "gank me"? I can;t say for certain, but I'd take a pretty good estimate that RFF would suddenly find themselves at the end of more crosshairs, and since you can't make an ungankable freighter, the chances are they would lose more ships. Now you have moved the goal posts. Now instead of everyone flying prudently only RFF is flying freighters. This is even more unbelievable that everyone flying prudently. It is also a stupid hypothetical that nobody should pay any attention to because it is like coming up with a hypothetical where gravity no longer works. Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: No, he is pointing out that prudence when flying a freighter can reduce risk as we see with RFF. No, that's not what he's pointing out at all. If he were simply saying "flying smarter reduces your chages of being ganked" there would be no argument, but the problem is he's saying RFF get ganked X% of the time therefore the chances of losing a hauler to a gank are X% unless you are stupid". He then uses that as a reason to give a relative nerf to freighters. It is the same thing. Flying smart is flying prudently. Flying stupid is flying imprudently. But good job trying to word smith your way out of this Lucas. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17467	Posted - 2016.02.25 20:41:40 - [1176] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 20:53:16 - [1177] - Quote The Ginger Sith wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. as for all this RFF stats applies to the general public that is like taking an alley that is a high traffic short cut for people during the day when its light out and lots around so criminals are afraid to do anything to late at night when its dark and very few around then the criminals jump and mug people passing through. same logic applies to RFF and the general freight population RFF just avoids the dangerous alley (gank pipes) when the gankers are active limits their cargo value and fits tank. this is actually simple logic that people employ in real life to avoid dangerous areas to protect their purse/wallet. so of course RFF lose less freighters it is called being smart. real life trucking routes of high value goods avoid areas where the risk of being hi-jacked is high hmm i wonder why they would do such a thing.... before you automatically use stats as a general application you should prolly realize that never works. Nobody said they were additive. But irrespective you'll probably want one, at least in PvP. Let's say that with native resists and a DC the hull resists go to 55% (this is lower than it currently is). To derive hull EHP you would divide your hull HP by 1-.55 or 0.45. So if you had 1,000 hull HP you'd have 2,222. With just the native resists you'd 1,500. With a DC you 48% more EHP. You'd be foolish not to fit one on a PvP ship, IMO. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7355	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:05:54 - [1178] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7355	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:09:08 - [1179] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Now you have moved the goal posts. No, I haven't, just as usual you've jumped in, not bothered reading the context of the posts and started throwing your 2 cents around, completely missing that you are now countering baltecs claims yourself. I'm not getting into this discussion with you as it is already off topic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17467	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:27:27 - [1180] - 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.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:28:37 - [1181] - Quote 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. Correct. Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%. After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields. For example, using a megathron with the following armor modules: Adaptive Nano Plating II Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II 1600mm Steel Plates II 1600mm Steel Plates II The EHP will be 120,286.5 Adding on an additional Mag Stab II moves the DPS from 473 to 566 or a 19.6% increase in DPS. However, removing the additional Max Stab II and putting in a DC II we get 148,042 EHP or a 23% increase in EHP. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1798	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:46:54 - [1182] - Quote The Ginger Sith wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. now: Hull-HP divided by 0.4 ( which is equal to 1- 60 % hull resistance) = 2.50 ehp after patch: Hull-HP multiplied by 1.33 and divided by 0.6 (1 - 40 % hull resistance) = 2.22 ehp
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:49:16 - [1183] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Now you have moved the goal posts. No, I haven't, just as usual you've jumped in, not bothered reading the context of the posts and started throwing your 2 cents around, completely missing that you are now countering baltecs claims yourself. I'm not getting into this discussion with you as it is already off topic. I am not refuting anything baltec1 has written. He is merely making the point: RFF flies smart...they hardly fail a contract. Implication: Fly smarter you'll be ganked less. Your hypothetical fantasy is where only RFF is flying freighters. Which is stupid and useless. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1798	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:49:17 - [1184] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%. After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields. Nope: damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW PRE patch :)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:53:41 - [1185] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: The Ginger Sith wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. now: Hull-HP divided by 0.4 ( which is equal to 1- 60 % hull resistance) = 2.50 ehp after patch: Hull-HP multiplied by 1.33 and divided by 0.6 (1 - 40 % hull resistance) = 2.22 ehp No. Check your formula. 1 - (1-native resists)*(1-module resists). If you add a second module of the same type you'll also have to factor in stacking penalties. Since you can only fit on DC at a time, stacking penalties are not a factor. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4767	Posted - 2016.02.25 21:54:56 - [1186] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%. After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields. Nope: damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW PRE patch :) Your math is wrong. Here, whip out EFT, and try your formula with armor resists and check it against EFT. Or go here. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1798	Posted - 2016.02.26 06:57:56 - [1187] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%. After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields. Nope: damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW PRE patch :) Check it ingame :) Damge control provides a bonus to hull, armor and shield right NOW Not after the patch only!
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 472	Posted - 2016.02.26 12:56:24 - [1188] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: If RFF were the only gank targets in the game, they would be killed at a much much MUCH higher rate than they are. They aren't surviving because pro players can survive, they are surviving because given the choice between targets the gankers pick the softest and most valuable ones. I know there's quote limits, so the rest of your quotes I'm just going to italicize. You're making an assumption that requires multiple targets of otherwise equal value to be present at the same time, where the gankers just decide not to attack one freighter because they magically know the packages inside the NPC-pilot's cargo are from RFF. This isn't the case and it's unreasonable to assume such a case. Freighters pass through chockepoints all the time with no other freighters coming through the pipe. These areas are busy, but they're not Jita Undock busy at all times. There are many times RFF-involved freighters are the only ones on grid, and they still don't get hit. Why? Because they put in an amount of effort that dramatically raises the amount of effort gankers have to put in to achieve a kill (or profit from it). It's really that simple. because pilots who aren't in RFF which we don't have stats for are likely killed at a much higher rate You can double or triple a trivial base number, and you end up with a Dilbert comic that did this exact thing. When you make yourself the butt of a joke Dilbert did about ten years ago, you're know you're not on the right track. I can quite happily dismiss the data without any problems thanks. And you can also quite happily say the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around you. You'd be just as correct doing so and look just as smart for making that assertion. If you dismiss facts out of hand and say you live in your own reality where facts aren't real but your own gut instincts are, why do you think you deserve to be part of any rational or reasonable discussion among adults? Here a fact for you, it's impossible to make a freighter ungankable short of refusing to undock it And? Why is that a problem for you? Why is that something that needs to be rectified? That is a baseline fact of EVERY ship, from rookie ship to titan, that everyone else seems to understand but you. But you bring that specific line up again and again as if it's some sort of strange anomaly that only effects freighters. Golly gosh, well clearly with you guys being in support of him, he must be right! It's not like you guys band together to attack people who's opinions oppose yours right? So wait a minute now. Now your argument is that people that share similar opinions tend to agree? This is an argument, how? And you're presenting as some sort of conspiracy theory? Yes, people who share similar opinions on a particular topic tend to, well, agree. Is this a surprise to you? When you opine on something and your friends agree, do you argue with them for the sake of arguing? Would it surprise you to learn that in the real world, lots of people with similar opinions congregate together to create things like political parties? I thought the absolute height of idiocy was your claim that people are somehow wrong for playing the game right. But now you've managed to take a very basic element of how the real world operates, act shocked and chagrined at this apparent revelation, and then present it as some sort of conspiracy theory against yourself. Over the course of this thread you've claimed that facts won't change your position once you've taken up an opinion on something, that people playing the game right are to be ignored and the game must continuously be changed to accommodate people who refuse to learn how to play, and that people speaking up with opinions contrary to your own are in on some sort of conspiracy against you. Dude, pack up and go home. You're done here. You have no credibility in this discussion and your connection with reality is now suspect at best. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1287	Posted - 2016.02.26 13:07:52 - [1189] - Quote Are people still trying to argue a DCU is optional? Snowflake shitfits need not apply
Jean-Luc CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 2	Posted - 2016.02.26 13:13:58 - [1190] - Quote Yay, finally an officer damage control, I like the new changes to hull resists, and how freighters will be more tanky.

GR455H0PPER Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2016.02.26 13:48:24 - [1191] - Quote whats the point,deleted
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 164	Posted - 2016.02.26 14:02:39 - [1192] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7356	Posted - 2016.02.26 15:07:52 - [1193] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: You're making an assumption that requires multiple targets of otherwise equal value to be present at the same time, where the gankers just decide not to attack one freighter because they magically know the packages inside the NPC-pilot's cargo are from RFF. No I'm not, I just know that gankers will select targets with higher values of isk, not being escorted and having low tank first. They know that such targets exists ad will happily seek them out. If those targets weren't to exist, they would pick less appealing targets through necessity. So what I'm saying is that RFF stats are only achievable through the existence of alternate targets, so if everyone were to play perfectly (the hypothetical situation on which baltec believes the game should be balanced) the achievable level of safety wouldn't reflect the existing RFF stats. Honestly, It's not that hard a concept to understand. Personally I think the game should be balanced more around averages vOv. Khan Wrenth wrote: And you can also quite happily say the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around you. You'd be just as correct doing so and look just as smart for making that assertion. If you dismiss facts out of hand and say you live in your own reality where facts aren't real but your own gut instincts are, why do you think you deserve to be part of any rational or reasonable discussion among adults? Which would be great if the data being provided were a complete picture of the situation, were provably accurate and relevant to the situation. It's like when I see an advert on TV that says 80% of people that use this product love it, followed by smallprint that tells you they asked 5 people. I dismiss that too. Khan Wrenth wrote: And? Why is that a problem for you? Why is that something that needs to be rectified? That is a baseline fact of EVERY ship, from rookie ship to titan, that everyone else seems to understand but you. But you bring that specific line up again and again as if it's some sort of strange anomaly that only effects freighters. It's not something that needs to be rectified, it;s a good solid part of the game, and even after this change will still exist. The point is that nothing RFF are doing guarantees their safety. Given enough gankers they would lose 100% of the ships they undocked. So effectively what baltec is saying is that because there are a limited number of gankers and because those limited gankers more often choose non-RFF targets that all haulers should be punished and gankers should not have to adapt to changes. Khan Wrenth wrote: So wait a minute now. Now your argument is that people that share similar opinions tend to agree? No, my argument is that certain people leap into attacking people opposing their arguments without actually providing any content of their own. Turning up to a thread going "you're stupid, lol" doesn't strengthen the argument against me, all it does is show how desperate these people are to save themselves from the very principles in EVE they claim to support. Pretty much if you have to resort to personal attacks in your posts, then it's a sign you're argument sucks, so well done buddy, you've just weakened your argument. Khan Wrenth wrote: Dude, pack up and go home. You're done here. You have no credibility in this discussion and your connection with reality is now suspect at best. No thanks, I don't just stop having an opinion because some people go off and rant at me a bit. Put up a convincing argument for why ganking should be even easier or an alternative solution to what CCP is providing and perhaps you can convince me but repeatedly insulting me and telling me how wrong I am - for no reason other than holding a different opinion to you - only strengthens my resolve. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1287	Posted - 2016.02.26 15:12:06 - [1194] - Quote Algarion Getz wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts. Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers. Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7356	Posted - 2016.02.26 16:13:08 - [1195] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers. Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction. Consider how little isk is made by a freighter pilot. Then consider how much is made by carrier ratters. Then consider that even though carriers don't even operate in highsec (so all should be exposed much more frequently to risk), then consider that only 26 per day were lost in January. So far for feb, Carriers are 23/day, freighters are 17/day. Throw dreadnaughts in with their 14/day in January and 12/day so far in feb, and this tells us that freighters are destroyed in line with other capital ships, even though most of their losses occur in a section of space designed to increase safety. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 16:31:52 - [1196] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Currently if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%. After these changes if you fit a DC II to a ship your hull resists will be 60%, plus all the bonuses to armor and shields. Nope: damage control has a bonus of 60 % to hull, 12.5 % to shield and 15 % to armor RIGHT NOW PRE patch :) Check it ingame :) Damge control provides a bonus to hull, armor and shield right NOW Not after the patch only! No, your math is wrong. Maybe the resists on the test server are different, but that does not change the fact that you are applying the wrong formula to calculate resists. I have shown how my formula works in two cases, one using a DC, pre and post patch, and also for a thermal armor hardener. And my numbers post patch do NOT include a 60% resist to hull, but a 40% resist along with the native resists of 33%. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 16:50:34 - [1197] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers. Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction. Consider how little isk is made by a freighter pilot. Then consider how much is made by carrier ratters. Then consider that even though carriers don't even operate in highsec (so all should be exposed much more frequently to risk), then consider that only 26 per day were lost in January. So far for feb, Carriers are 23/day, freighters are 17/day. Throw dreadnaughts in with their 14/day in January and 12/day so far in feb, and this tells us that freighters are destroyed in line with other capital ships, even though most of their losses occur in a section of space designed to increase safety. Hi, I am Lucas Kell and I like to compare apples to oranges on a routine basis and pretend they are the same. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 16:55:46 - [1198] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Algarion Getz wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: How much EHP is too much EHP for some pleb's hauler? One million? Two million? Ten million? If everyone in CODE. on all their dps characters are needed is that too much? What about everyone in miniluv? Freighter ganking is in no way too easy currently, that's why there is SO LITTLE OF IT. There is little freigher ganking? 30-50 successfull freighter ganks happen every day. Thats a lot when you consider that freighters are not dirt-cheap throw-away ships like the ganker's catalysts. Try half that value. Less than 15 per day in January, and not all of those were to gankers. Put another way, some 0.6 deaths per hour. Given the number floating about, that is a tiny fraction. What Morrigan wrote. What we need to look at is the rate of ganking. Also, we need to consider that many of those ganked are flying stupidly (way too much ISK value for the cargo, no scout, no webbing, some even AFK auto-piloting). Try this. Get an expensive non-freighter ship, put some really blingy modules on it and start having it autopilot back and forth through the pipe from Jita to Dodixie. My guess is if you do it enough, you will get ganked. Because you were dumb. Very, very dumb. In this game being dumb comes with an actual cost. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7358	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:03:06 - [1199] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17467	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:05:54 - [1200] - 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.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:13:56 - [1201] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Well...I guess you could argue they are both capitals, like one could argue apples and oranges are both fruit. But to try and make the point that loss rates across a category of ships like Lucas is doing is just daft. Carriers, currently, are used in ratting, combat and triage. Freighters, currently, are used to haul large amounts of cargo. Why should we expect loss rates to be even close? Never mind the problem with data such as how many of each do people own, how often are they in space, etc. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17468	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:34:03 - [1202] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:54:01 - [1203] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: [quote=Khan Wrenth] So what I'm saying is that RFF stats are only achievable through the existence of alternate targets, so if everyone were to play perfectly (the hypothetical situation on which baltec believes the game should be balanced) the achievable level of safety wouldn't reflect the existing RFF stats. Honestly, It's not that hard a concept to understand. Well look at Lucas. Simply amazing. To Lucas, perfect is apparently a synonym for prudent or smart. This is a usual Lucas tactic (BTW, Lucas does play perfectly, he has said so) to start swapping out words that don't quite mean the same thing his opponents are using. Here is the claim Lucas: Being more prudent (flying smart) in your freighter will reduce your risk of being ganked. The evidence is RFF's annual reports. They do fly smart. Now, you can argue, if you want, that if everyone did this people would still get ganked and that's fine. But you have **** all for data and so we don't know how much ganking would really occur. However, I am skeptical that it would return to it's current levels. Very skeptical. The reason is that it would take more effort and people do not like exerting effort. So, if everyone miraculously did fly smart, there would be less ganking. Probably a lot less. But, do continue to argue to the contrary Lucas. I'm sure someday you'll be seen as the lone genius you think you are. Edit: And to be clear, the notion that everyone flies their freighter smart is hilariously unlikely. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17468	Posted - 2016.02.26 17:57:39 - [1204] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:05:16 - [1205] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. And I re-read the OP. They are going with a flat 33% resist so... Pre-patch with a DC II hull resists: 66%. Post-patch with a DC II hull resists: 59.8%. So, a 0.2% drop in hull EHP. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
The Ginger Sith Ministry of War Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:08:42 - [1206] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. And I re-read the OP. They are going with a flat 33% resist so... Pre-patch with a DC II hull resists: 66%. Post-patch with a DC II hull resists: 59.8%. So, a 0.2% drop in hull EHP. current DCU II is only 60% only way i know to get more is to use on marauder with bastion active as bastion gives 30% to hull combined with DCU II u get about 72% so post patch it will be 33% flat and DCU II will be 40% so how ever ccp does the math on that cause it deffo isn't accumulative :(
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:12:39 - [1207] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Well...I guess you could argue they are both capitals, like one could argue apples and oranges are both fruit. But to try and make the point that loss rates across a category of ships like Lucas is doing is just daft. They aren't just capital ships, they are capital ships around the same price bracket in constant use. Teckos Pech wrote: Also, most carriers are probably found in NS. Many people who use carriers may be more prudent than people using freighters. So, loss rates would be different not due to mechanics, but due to player behavior. Which is fine and a feature, IMO. Trying to ensure loss rates are the same by constantly adjusting mechanics is just simply stupid in the extreme. Carriers are used in sections of space where the is no concord protection and where far more people than gankers actively hunt them down. They are also used directly in combat, so you would expect pretty high losses. I wasn't suggesting that they should try to balance their loss levels, I was simply saying that put in context, pulling out the number of freighter deaths per day then saying "that's low" with nothing for it to actually be compared to isn't useful. I could just as readily say "15 freighters die per day, that's really high". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:21:50 - [1208] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Well look at Lucas. Simply amazing. Thanks. For someone with me blocked you seem to have an awful lot to say about my posts. Teckos Pech wrote: Here is the claim Lucas: Being more prudent (flying smart) in your freighter will reduce your risk of being ganked. That is not the claim. Read the posts. If that were the claim, there would be nothing more to say aout it, but instead the claim is "RFF manage to achieve less losses than the average therefore hauling in general should not be buffed and ganking should not be nerfed". Again though it's irrelevant since EHP is not what saves RFF freighters thus an increase in EHP has no bearing on catching them. All EHP does is mean gankers need to pay a bit more to get the gank and anti-gankers have a fraction more chance of actually doing something. Both of these things gankers hate the idea of because they want easy, rewarding gameplay with no opposition. Tough, this is EVE. Teckos Pech wrote: people do not like exerting effort. Yup, this is being proven by how much wailing is coming over a minor buff. Teckos Pech wrote: And to be clear, the notion that everyone flies their freighter smart is hilariously unlikely. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:39:35 - [1209] - Quote The Ginger Sith wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. And I re-read the OP. They are going with a flat 33% resist so... Pre-patch with a DC II hull resists: 66%. Post-patch with a DC II hull resists: 59.8%. So, a 0.2% drop in hull EHP. current DCU II is only 60% only way i know to get more is to use on marauder with bastion active as bastion gives 30% to hull combined with DCU II u get about 72% so post patch it will be 33% flat and DCU II will be 40% so how ever ccp does the math on that cause it deffo isn't accumulative :( It will be 59.8% vs. 60% now. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17468	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:40:48 - [1210] - 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.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:47:25 - [1211] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Well...I guess you could argue they are both capitals, like one could argue apples and oranges are both fruit. But to try and make the point that loss rates across a category of ships like Lucas is doing is just daft. They aren't just capital ships, they are capital ships around the same price bracket in constant use. Teckos Pech wrote: Also, most carriers are probably found in NS. Many people who use carriers may be more prudent than people using freighters. So, loss rates would be different not due to mechanics, but due to player behavior. Which is fine and a feature, IMO. Trying to ensure loss rates are the same by constantly adjusting mechanics is just simply stupid in the extreme. Carriers are used in sections of space where the is no concord protection and where far more people than gankers actively hunt them down. They are also used directly in combat, so you would expect pretty high losses. I wasn't suggesting that they should try to balance their loss levels, I was simply saying that put in context, pulling out the number of freighter deaths per day then saying "that's low" with nothing for it to actually be compared to isn't useful. I could just as readily say "15 freighters die per day, that's really high". So what that people actively hunt them. People also take precautions against that hunting as well. There is no reason to expect loss rates to be the same or for one to have a higher loss rate than the other. And you absolutely have no basis for saying that such ships are in constant use. That has been the problem with saying "ganking is too frequent" argument. We don't know that because we have no idea on how many freighters are out moving around at any given time or even over a time span. If people are wrong to say, "15 freighters die per day, that's low." You'd be just as wrong to say it is high. However, for those who say it is low...they are often hanging out in HS where freighter use is very common and may get a reasonable feel for how frequent they are. I know when I go through Uedama I routinely see 4-8 on the gates and I play during a low point in terms of number of players online. So, my personal a priori belief is that the number of freighters ganked relative to the numbers moving about is low. Although feel free to go collect some data on this. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:51:17 - [1212] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17468	Posted - 2016.02.26 18:59:23 - [1213] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:03:33 - [1214] - 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. Back tracking noted. How about obvious imprudent play? Buff that too I guess. If you put cargo expanders on your freighter, fill it with 8 billion in cargo, and then head straight into Uedama without even a scout...you are being very imprudent. You are taking risks. When you take risks sometimes you get the bad outcome. Everything working as intended. Buffing the EHP for hull across the board for everyone reduces the risk to the guy who filled his freighter with 8 billion in cargo, is not using a scout and blindly jumping into Uedama. It is essentially subsidizing stupid play. So...why buff playing stupid? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:03:40 - [1215] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: So what that people actively hunt them. People also take precautions against that hunting as well. There is no reason to expect loss rates to be the same or for one to have a higher loss rate than the other. Of course their is. I would always expect ships used actively in PvP combat to exceed ships used for running around highsec specifically flown to avoid combat, with the exception of special edition ships. Teckos Pech wrote: And you absolutely have no basis for saying that such ships are in constant use. Teckos Pech wrote: That has been the problem with saying "ganking is too frequent" argument. We don't know that because we have no idea on how many freighters are out moving around at any given time or even over a time span. Yet you haven't once raged at one of the people claiming that highsec is just dripping with freighters. Teckos Pech wrote: If people are wrong to say, "15 freighters die per day, that's low." You'd be just as wrong to say it is high. However, for those who say it is low...they are often hanging out in HS where freighter use is very common and may get a reasonable feel for how frequent they are. You absolutely have no basis for saying that freighter use is "very common". Certainly no more that me saying that carrier use is common. I hang out in highsec a fair bit, including quite a bit with those same gankers. I also live in nullsec so I get to witness the use of freighters first hand. So if I'm not allowed to use first hand experience, neither are they. Teckos Pech wrote: I know when I go through Uedama I routinely see 4-8 on the gates and I play during a low point in terms of number of players online.So, my personal a priori belief is that the number of freighters ganked relative to the numbers moving about is low. Although feel free to go collect some data on this. First hand experience now allowed, remember? My personal feeling is that the number of freighter being ganked is close to what it should be, however I do believe the cost to gank those freighters is a little low, and the ability for an opposing side to directly conflict with gankers on an even field is non-existent. Personally I'd prefer that active anti-gank mechanics are put in place and passive defense for freighters is reduced, relying more on players fighting gankers with a more reasonable an balanced chance of success. That said, this change isn;t to fix haulers, it's to change the DC, and a small part of it will also increase a freighters EHP. Since EHP is only a very minor part of freighter defense, I have absolutely no issues with that happening, as it doesn't make ganking impossible but does up the cost a smidge. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4768	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:09:15 - [1216] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: snip Regarding constant use: how much do I use my freighter and carrier? Some are used quite often others are not. You have literally no evidence on this. None. As for PvP...I'm sorry, you were specifically referencing ratting carriers....that is not generally seen as PvP. As for the cost of ganking you are talking out of your ass. Sure, if we just totaled up the ISK it looks low, but you are overlooking a major cost in there. Opp...oppor...c'mon you can guess it. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:13:07 - [1217] - Quote baltec1 wrote: And yet here you are demanding nerfs to a ganking activity done by just two or three groups. Oh the irony. I'm not demanding anything. 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? Teckos Pech wrote: How about obvious imprudent play? Buff that too I guess. That's always going to happen. Saying "don;t buff people making dumb choices" is the same as saying "never improve gameplay mechanics" because you can't make a change without buffing them. Say they chose to not buff haulers here, that would mean that haulers remain the same while gnak ships will gain a slight EHP buff (as wil levery other ship in the game). This means that the F1 pressing monkeys (the imprudent players of the ganking world) can continue to just press F1 but now it takes an extra short or two (or more depending on ship) for them to be volleyed off the field or at a gate when they are waiting for their fleet warp. Teckos Pech wrote: If you put cargo expanders on your freighter, fill it with 8 billion in cargo, and then head straight into Uedama without even a scout...you are being very imprudent. You are taking risks. When you take risks sometimes you get the bad outcome. Very true, and even after this change those same ships will be bumped, killed and looted. Teckos Pech wrote: Buffing the EHP for hull across the board for everyone reduces the risk to the guy who filled his freighter with 8 billion in cargo, is not using a scout and blindly jumping into Uedama. It is essentially subsidizing stupid play. No, it doesn't. It increases cost for the gankers, but it doesn't decrease the risk of being ganked if you fly a fully expanded freighter with high value cargo and no scout. You'll still be the #1 target and you'll still pop just as much as ever. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7360	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:20:40 - [1218] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Regarding constant use: how much do I use my freighter and carrier? Some are used quite often others are not. You have literally no evidence on this. None. But neither do you, and that's the point. You seem to think it's OK for you to make wild sweeping statements based purely on your own experience but others are not. Teckos Pech wrote: As for PvP...I'm sorry, you were specifically referencing ratting carriers....that is not generally seen as PvP. I was referencing carrier losses in general but pointing out that one use of a carrier can also be for making a profound amount of ISK. Teckos Pech wrote: As for the cost of ganking you are talking out of your ass. Sure, if we just totaled up the ISK it looks low, but you are overlooking a major cost in there. Opp...oppor...c'mon you can guess it. Whatever you say Gevlon. In that case hauling is ISK negative. Pretty much every ISK making activity vastly outstrips the income made from hauling in highsec. But in all seriousness, just like Gevlon you can;t just go "but opportunity cost!" because that would pretty much limit the game down to being just "incursions online". People choosing to take part in a given activity means they have accepted the value of that activity in isk and/or entertainment, so the fact that they could have chosen to do something else instead doesn't really come into it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17469	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:21:44 - [1219] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:22:08 - [1220] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: How about obvious imprudent play? Buff that too I guess. That's always going to happen. Saying "don;t buff people making dumb choices" is the same as saying "never improve gameplay mechanics" because you can't make a change without buffing them. Say they chose to not buff haulers here, that would mean that haulers remain the same while gnak ships will gain a slight EHP buff (as wil levery other ship in the game). This means that the F1 pressing monkeys (the imprudent players of the ganking world) can continue to just press F1 but now it takes an extra short or two (or more depending on ship) for them to be volleyed off the field or at a gate when they are waiting for their fleet warp. This change will quite clearly be of greater benefit to the imprudent than to the prudent. That is bad as it is basically rewarding the foolish which is antithetical to the game. The risk to prudent freighter pilots will not change appreciably. The risk to the imprudent will go down. That is bad game design. Lucas Kell wrote: Very true, and even after this change those same ships will be bumped, killed and looted. Not necessarily. Prior to the buff they might have been killed, after the chances of being ganked will go down. Lower probability, same number of trials...fewer ganks. Lucas Kell wrote: No, it doesn't. It increases cost for the gankers, but it doesn't decrease the risk of being ganked if you fly a fully expanded freighter with high value cargo and no scout. You'll still be the #1 target and you'll still pop just as much as ever. Yes, it increases the costs. So you'll get less ganking. Duh. So even if you are the number 1 target in Uedama if they can't get the numbers...well no gank. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.26 19:32:27 - [1221] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Regarding constant use: how much do I use my freighter and carrier? Some are used quite often others are not. You have literally no evidence on this. None. But neither do you, and that's the point. You seem to think it's OK for you to make wild sweeping statements based purely on your own experience but others are not. I never claimed I did have any evidence Lucas. Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: As for the cost of ganking you are talking out of your ass. Sure, if we just totaled up the ISK it looks low, but you are overlooking a major cost in there. Opp...oppor...c'mon you can guess it. Whatever you say Gevlon. In that case hauling is ISK negative. Pretty much every ISK making activity vastly outstrips the income made from hauling in highsec. But in all seriousness, just like Gevlon you can;t just go "but opportunity cost!" because that would pretty much limit the game down to being just "incursions online". People choosing to take part in a given activity means they have accepted the value of that activity in isk and/or entertainment, so the fact that they could have chosen to do something else instead doesn't really come into it. Wow...that was...just amazingly stupid. Opportunity costs is a cost because you have other opportunities, to say those opportunities and the cost of passing them up is to imply opportunity cost is irrelevant. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7361	Posted - 2016.02.26 20:08:46 - [1222] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You are always demanding more and more nerfs, your hatred of ganking is well known. Regardless of what you claim, I push for balance and entertaining mechanics. baltec1 wrote: 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. Uh, no. Pls train comprehension to 5 baltec1 wrote: 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. Why are you here? Your only aim is to save easy gamplay from a minor nerf. At the end of the day, if you don't like having to see me have an opinion, there's a block button. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7361	Posted - 2016.02.26 20:14:55 - [1223] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: This change will quite clearly be of greater benefit to the imprudent than to the prudent. That is bad as it is basically rewarding the foolish which is antithetical to the game. No it won't, it's an equal percentage buff to both, so prudent players should see a bigger increase as they actively strive to increase their defense and benefit more from a % buff. Teckos Pech wrote: Not necessarily. Prior to the buff they might have been killed, after the chances of being ganked will go down. Lower probability, same number of trials...fewer ganks. Nope. Teckos Pech wrote: Yes, it increases the costs. So you'll get less ganking. Duh. So even if you are the number 1 target in Uedama if they can't get the numbers...well no gank. Prove that ganking will go down. You like to leap about and tell people they are making claims with no evidence, then you make one yourself. I imagine if gankers struggle to get the small numbers it would take to gank with the new defense they will trade up to more expensive ships or run at the target twice. Again, it's an increase in cost, not a reduction in risk. Besides, didn't you say you would start ganking because of this change? That'll help with the numbers. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7361	Posted - 2016.02.26 20:21:06 - [1224] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: [Wow...that was...just amazingly stupid. Opportunity costs is a cost because you have other opportunities, to say those opportunities and the cost of passing them up is to imply opportunity cost is irrelevant. Opportunity cost is irrelevant. If opportunity cost were relevant there would be only one isk positive mechanic in the entire game. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3128	Posted - 2016.02.26 20:51:45 - [1225] - Quote That would depend on your player skill, aversion to risk, time available and char abilities. Hauling can be done such that you'd make more than say running missions. It may be riskier however. So its something having more player skill or less aversion to risk allows you to do. These changes hurt the ability to have that competitive edge over less able or more risk averse players. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17469	Posted - 2016.02.26 21:10:13 - [1226] - 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 - [1227] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7363	Posted - 2016.02.26 21:58:51 - [1228] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.26 23:28:25 - [1229] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: [Wow...that was...just amazingly stupid. Opportunity costs is a cost because you have other opportunities, to say those opportunities and the cost of passing them up is to imply opportunity cost is irrelevant. Opportunity cost is irrelevant. If opportunity cost were relevant there would be only one isk positive mechanic in the entire game. 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. Wow...all I can say is the stupid was strong in that post. Opportunity cost is always relevant. I know you will continue to disagree, but that's fine. I don't mind, and I know I'll never convince you. But it's nice knowing this post shows everyone how daft your view is on this issue. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.26 23:43:25 - [1230] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: This change will quite clearly be of greater benefit to the imprudent than to the prudent. That is bad as it is basically rewarding the foolish which is antithetical to the game. No it won't, it's an equal percentage buff to both, so prudent players should see a bigger increase as they actively strive to increase their defense and benefit more from a % buff. Okay, if I am a prudent freighter pilot, then I get the benefit, but it does nothing to reduce my chances of getting ganked as they are already low. Thus, little to no benefit. If I am imprudent--i.e. I use autopilot for example, this buff helps me as it makes it more difficult to gank me. Hence a much bigger benefit. Lucas Kell wrote: Prove that ganking will go down. You like to leap about and tell people they are making claims with no evidence, then you make one yourself. I imagine if gankers struggle to get the small numbers it would take to gank with the new defense they will trade up to more expensive ships or run at the target twice. Again, it's an increase in cost, not a reduction in risk. Besides, didn't you say you would start ganking because of this change? That'll help with the numbers. It is a basic result of economics. Want less of something increase the costs. Raise the cost of ganking, you'll get less of it. Look at your supposed solution of "more expensive" ships. Unless there are commensurately more freighters with cargo that justifies that cost...less ganking. As for risk...what? Yet another stupid thing put in a post. Risk is not just based on probabilities or a probability distribution, but also involves the costs and benefits of the activity and/or investment. For example, when insurance companies come up with policies they are looking at the costs of various outcomes. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7363	Posted - 2016.02.27 00:15:07 - [1231] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Wow...all I can say is the stupid was strong in that post. Sure, but only because insulting people is your goto move. Teckos Pech wrote: Opportunity cost is always relevant. I know you will continue to disagree, but that's fine. I don't mind, and I know I'll never convince you. But it's nice knowing this post shows everyone how daft your view is on this issue. Of course I'll continue to disagree, because you are wrong. Again though, if opportunity cost is relevant as you claim, then haulers are always isk negative and still needs to be buffed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7363	Posted - 2016.02.27 00:43:48 - [1232] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Okay, if I am a prudent freighter pilot, then I get the benefit, but it does nothing to reduce my chances of getting ganked as they are already low. Thus, little to no benefit. If I am imprudent--i.e. I use autopilot for example, this buff helps me as it makes it more difficult to gank me. Hence a much bigger benefit. It's makes it more difficult to gank both, even more difficult to gank a prudent pilot with a better buffer to begin with, thus from an EHP standpoint the prudent pilot gains more. However, pilots more often than not avoid being ganked through evasion, so from an ability to be caught standpoint, nothing has changed. Whatever way you swing it, a prudent pilot has gained as much or more than the imprudent pilot. The imprudent pilot will still be the one chosen to be ganked, and nothing suggests they will be ganked any less, gankers will simply have to pay marginally more to do it. Teckos Pech wrote: It is a basic result of economics. Want less of something increase the costs. Raise the cost of ganking, you'll get less of it. But there's no evidence of that link. In fact since ganking used to be basically free due to insurance costs and concord tanking, ganking prices have gone up and yet ganking activity has increased. Consider the burn X events alone which vastly outclass the older events. Teckos Pech wrote: Look at your supposed solution of "more expensive" ships. Unless there are commensurately more freighters with cargo that justifies that cost...less ganking. Ganking even low value freighters is already profitable and still will be with a small increase in cost. More personal attacks. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17471	Posted - 2016.02.27 01:26:27 - [1233] - 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 - [1234] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7363	Posted - 2016.02.27 01:38:15 - [1235] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. What part exactly is the lie? I claimed that including opportunity cost, highsec hauling (which is what we are talking about here) is isk negative. You then went on to claim - without any evidence I'll add, something you guys explode with rage about - that a guy who jumps JFs into low/null makes isk, and you didn't specify how many characters or how long it takes him to do this, and you've decided not to answer any of it when questioned about it. How that makes me a liar I have no idea. baltec1 wrote: Adding the EHP of a charon to the tank of the obelisk is not a small increase in cost. It is though, isn't it. I mean let's face it, it's a small cost to gank either right now, so ganking both (which I doubt is actually the way it works out) would be a small increase in cost. Once again you're just trying to exaggerate the difference that this will make trying to avoid having the extra effort. Learn to adapt. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17471	Posted - 2016.02.27 01:53:01 - [1236] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.27 04:44:46 - [1237] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: What part exactly is the lie? I claimed that including opportunity cost, highsec hauling (which is what we are talking about here) is isk negative. You then went on to claim - without any evidence I'll add, something you guys explode with rage about - that a guy who jumps JFs into low/null makes isk, and you didn't specify how many characters or how long it takes him to do this, and you've decided not to answer any of it when questioned about it. How that makes me a liar I have no idea. Demonstrate how it is negative ISK. Here is a hint...opportunity cost is subjective. We have moved beyond accounting and into economics. Opportunity cost is always present so long as there are alternatives. Lucas Kell wrote: It is though, isn't it. I mean let's face it, it's a small cost to gank either right now, so ganking both (which I doubt is actually the way it works out) would be a small increase in cost. Once again you're just trying to exaggerate the difference that this will make trying to avoid having the extra effort. Learn to adapt. Well we already established you don't know about costs.... Currently an obelisk with reinforced bulkhead IIs in the lows will require a minimum of 34 catalysts to gank. Factoring in that not everyone has good skills and to make double damn sure lets say 40 catalysts. To gank post patch it will likely require 50 catalysts. Yes, in terms of catalysts is not that bad, 80 million ISK. However, this ignores logistics costs, and the time lost while making sure that there are 50 people in fleet vs. 40. These costs are better classified as opportunity costs. And despite what Lucas believes, they still count. Oh and this is for a 0.5 system. A 0.6 will require even more pilots. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.27 04:57:24 - [1238] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Opportunity cost is always relevant. I know you will continue to disagree, but that's fine. I don't mind, and I know I'll never convince you. But it's nice knowing this post shows everyone how daft your view is on this issue. Of course I'll continue to disagree, because you are wrong. Again though, if opportunity cost is relevant as you claim, then haulers are always isk negative and still needs to be buffed. Not quiet. Quote: An opportunity cost is the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action. [snip] The opportunity cost of going to college is the money you would have earned if you worked instead. On the one hand, you lose four years of salary while getting your degree; on the other hand, you hope to earn more during your career, thanks to your education, to offset the lost wages. The opportunity cost does not disappear once a choice is made. More here. Quote: When economists refer to the GÇ£opportunity costGÇ¥ of a resource, they mean the value of the next-highest-valued alternative use of that resource. If, for example, you spend time and money going to a movie, you cannot spend that time at home reading a book, and you cannot spend the money on something else. If your next-best alternative to seeing the movie is reading the book, then the opportunity cost of seeing the movie is the money spent plus the pleasure you forgo by not reading the book. The word GÇ£opportunityGÇ¥ in GÇ£opportunity costGÇ¥ is actually redundant. The cost of using something is already the value of the highest-valued alternative use. But as contract lawyers and airplane pilots know, redundancy can be a virtue. In this case, its virtue is to remind us that the cost of using a resource arises from the value of what it could be used for instead. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4770	Posted - 2016.02.27 05:02:59 - [1239] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Okay, if I am a prudent freighter pilot, then I get the benefit, but it does nothing to reduce my chances of getting ganked as they are already low. Thus, little to no benefit. If I am imprudent--i.e. I use autopilot for example, this buff helps me as it makes it more difficult to gank me. Hence a much bigger benefit. It's makes it more difficult to gank both....[snip] sigh Jesus Lucas.... Yes, it theoretically makes both harder to gank...but since the prudent pilot is already hard to gank the added "benefit" is of less value. Here, lets try this although I doubt it will work. If I get ganked 1 time out of 1,000 trips through Uedama such a buff means little to me. Yes, that 1 time in 1,000 it might be handy, but the other 999 times it means nothing. If I get ganked 1 time out of 10 trips through Uedama then such a buff means much more because it will come in handy much more. Thus it is of more benefit to the dumb pilot. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7363	Posted - 2016.02.27 11:41:16 - [1240] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The part where you said hauling is negative isk, this isn't hard. If we're counting opportunity cost, then highsec hauling is. baltec1 wrote: No it is not. Its is adding 157,000 EHP to the obelisk. That is a staggeringly massive change. 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. Teckos Pech wrote: Demonstrate how it is negative ISK. Here is a hint...opportunity cost is subjective. We have moved beyond accounting and into economics. Opportunity cost is always present so long as there are alternatives. Well according to RFF, their average reward per jump is 890k. A jump with align in a fast freighter takes around 2 minutes on average (based on a trip from Amarr to Jita just completed) so their income rate would be 26.7m per hour. A mission blitzer can make 80-100m/h, thus even in comparison to that, they are isk negative. We could be ridiculous and compare it to trading, for example the other week I spend about 6 hours on a day, most of which was spent playing the playstation and made 60b in 3 days. The point is that opportunity cost is always going to be irrelevant and should certainly not be used as a basis for balancing mechanics, and if it were probably wouldn't work out the way you hoped. Teckos Pech wrote: Not quiet. Lol, I'm not disputing the term exists, I'm disputing your use and specifically your use in a video game. Even in the real world, you wouldn't; say "an opportunity cost of me running by baked bean selling business is that I could instead have become a movie star and made significantly more". In terms of a game it;s no different. Opportunity cost in the way you are performing your chosen playstyle exists, but you can't pull opportunity cost based on having a completely different playstyle you've already chosen not to have. I'm not going to continue a giant discussion around you being wrong and desperately grasping at straws. You can't count gankers choosing to be gankers as a cost, and if you CCP ever decides to start balancing based on opportunity costs vs other mechanics, I look forward to miners making over 100m per hour with nearly no risk when it's balanced again mission blitzing. Teckos Pech wrote: Yes, it theoretically makes both harder to gank...but since the prudent pilot is already hard to gank the added "benefit" is of less value. That still doesn't mean you didn't get the benefit at an equal or greater rate, and since you've yet to show me evidence that the dumb pilot would be ganked any less, in reality they've gained nothing. Stop circling though, it's not constructive and it's certainly not going to change CCPs mind about this good change they are bringing out. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Uppsy Daisy Perkone Caldari State 647	Posted - 2016.02.27 14:55:49 - [1241] - Quote CCP Fozzie, could I ask if you have thought about how these changes affect the already very strong Gallente ship line up, given they always have the largest hull armor of any race? I'm especially talking about the Tristan,Vexor and Navy Comet - they certainly don't need buffs and this is one.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 792	Posted - 2016.02.27 15:48:06 - [1242] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Well according to RFF, their average reward per jump is 890k. A jump with align in a fast freighter takes around 2 minutes on average (based on a trip from Amarr to Jita just completed) so their income rate would be 26.7m per hour. That's the average reward on a per contract basis, so to increase efficiency its normal to haul more than 1 contract at a time. Until 2011, RFF pilots used to link multiple RFF packages together in a double wrap and then haul 3-4 together, plus any other contracts not of RFF origin. Since 2012, the policy is to not double wrap them, but to let all the packages be freely scanned. My average is to haul 4 contracts simultaneously (from a range of different sources) and using webs, the average time between jumps is 1 min 5 sec. My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 16:07:08 - [1243] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK. How many alts does it take to achieve that? Bear in mind a mission blitzer can make 100m isk/hour consistently with a single character. The important question really is, could you make more isk/character/hour performing a task other than hauling? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 792	Posted - 2016.02.27 16:43:22 - [1244] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Violet Crumble wrote: My average income when hauling is 120 million per hour, which isn't unusual if you are a dedicated hauler. I'm not all that dedicated and usually stop after a couple of hours. With the right contracts, I regularly make 300-350 million in a couple of hours and then go do other things. Some days it takes lonnger, or I decide to stop at a lower income. Some guys just haul constantly and are making great ISK. How many alts does it take to achieve that? Bear in mind a mission blitzer can make 100m isk/hour consistently with a single character. The important question really is, could you make more isk/character/hour performing a task other than hauling? 1 webbing alt that would exist anyway whether I haul or not because that character also does other things. The important question is simply am I having fun. All your talk of opportunity costs and such don't bother me in the slightest. That's just typical Lucas speak to help make stupid arguments. It's a game, not a job. Your claim that hauling is making less than 30 million per hour is wrong, by a large margin. It's based on a lack of understanding how people actually haul as a profession. No one that hauls effectively makes such poor income. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 17:30:33 - [1245] - Quote Violet Crumble wrote: 1 webbing alt that would exist anyway whether I haul or not because that character also does other things. The important question is simply am I having fun. All your talk of opportunity costs and such don't bother me in the slightest. That's just typical Lucas speak to help make stupid arguments. It's a game, not a job. Your claim that hauling is making less than 30 million per hour is wrong, by a large margin. It's based on a lack of understanding how people actually haul as a profession. No one that hauls effectively makes such poor income. No, I think you misunderstand. I am totally on your side, that it's about what is fun and what is entertaining. Teckos is trying to claim that opportunity cost should be applied to ganking when working out their income and that they should be balanced based on that. I'm pointing out that opportunity cost is irrelevant and that if it wasn't most playstyles would be negative as there's almost always something you could be doing for better isk if you ignored what you enjoyed. So yes, I fully agree, it's a game, not a job, what is important is having fun and opportunity costs are irrelevant. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17472	Posted - 2016.02.27 18:03:47 - [1246] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 18:16:53 - [1247] - Quote baltec1 wrote: If we are going to follow this line of fudging numbers then ganking is in a far worse position. 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. baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17472	Posted - 2016.02.27 18:35:02 - [1248] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 18:43:53 - [1249] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Funny how every argument you have made so far has ended with you saying its irrelevant when it was pointed out you were wrong. Actually, I pointed out it was irrelevant from the start, and all that's happened is people like yourself have stated that I am wrong (which doesn't mean I actually am). Really it's just a difference of opinion. Regardless, the change is coming so get used to it or get out. baltec1 wrote: To gank an obelisk in 0.6 space will cost 1.25 billion more in talos. That is also not a small number. 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! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17472	Posted - 2016.02.27 18:52:21 - [1250] - 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

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 19:30:39 - [1251] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You cant gank it with 100 mil of catalysts. Equally expecting people to form up 100 people is unrealistic. 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. baltec1 wrote: 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. Except it is. Normal players have pointed it out, CCP have pointed it out and even some gankers have agreed that it's a minor nuisance at best and that little will change. It's only people like yourself raging at the slight extra effort you'll have to put in. You my friend need to calm down. baltec1 wrote: You are a pathological lair hell bent on removing an entire playstyle from eve no matter how damaging the change is 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.27 19:43:43 - [1252] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it? So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 19:48:36 - [1253] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it? So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking. Except it won't necessarily take 100 more people (in fact it should never take 100 more people, since even in T1 cats in a 1.0 most gank targets take considerably less than that anyway). Again, it comes down to choice. Add people or add better ships. If you have more people you can save on ships, if you have less people you pay more for better ships. That's just the way EVE works... I know it'd be really nice if instead you could just have easy gameplay with no opposition and still never see even a slight nerf, but that's just not reality. Adapt or die. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.27 19:52:09 - [1254] - 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. Yes, and change the mechanics you change that choice. This change means you need either more people or more fire power. The latter means more time getting people into fleet and the latter means passing by targets you might otherwise have hit. Both translate into less ganking if these effects are big enough. And a 30-35% increase in a freighters EHP is a big change. Everyone gets this but you. Basically what we'll see is a drive towards larger ganking organizations such as Miniluv and CODE. If more organizations form like that we might see a negligible drop in ganking...but those organizations come with costs. So this change is increasing the costs to ganking and reducing the risks for those who would otherwise be ganked. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 19:57:30 - [1255] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Yes, and change the mechanics you change that choice. This change means you need either more people or more fire power. Yup, that's the crux of it. Neat eh? Teckos Pech wrote: And a 30-35% increase in a freighters EHP is a big change. Everyone gets this but you. Well no, there's only a couple of you that "get that" and by "get that" I mean get irate over a minor change. Even some existing gankers have been in here saying it's not a particularly big change, and CCP certainly have. I'd be very surprised if there's even a noticeable drop in ganking. Teckos Pech wrote: Basically what we'll see is a drive towards larger ganking organizations such as Miniluv and CODE. If more organizations form like that we might see a negligible drop in ganking...but those organizations come with costs. So this change is increasing the costs to ganking and reducing the risks for those who would otherwise be ganked. Freighter ganking is for big organisations. It''s killing a capital ship illegally in highsec, it's not something that should be easily done by a handful of jokers in terrible ships, it should take a larger organisation. It should also have an opposing side that can actually interfere with it in a meaningful way too, which it doesn't. If mechanics for anti-ganking were better, less passive defense would be needed to balance out the mechanics, but they don't so here we are. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:02:56 - [1256] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Right, these are all "costs", IMO. Trying to ping for 100 people can be a pain. Sure the Imperium can do it, but it also has what...6,000....8,000 RL people in it? So you spend more time pinging and less time....ganking. Except it won't necessarily take 100 more people (in fact it should never take 100 more people, since even in T1 cats in a 1.0 most gank targets take considerably less than that anyway). Again, it comes down to choice. Add people or add better ships. If you have more people you can save on ships, if you have less people you pay more for better ships. That's just the way EVE works... I know it'd be really nice if instead you could just have easy gameplay with no opposition and still never see even a slight nerf, but that's just not reality. Adapt or die. 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. Why is it you always assume every change always leads back to the status quo? And a 30% buff to a ships EHP is not a slight change. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:08:35 - [1257] - Quote 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. Doubt it. Gankers already have a decent enough margin that they will be able to absorb any changes into their existing target selection. All it really means is they'll have a little less isk flooding in. vOv Teckos Pech wrote: Why is it you always assume every change always leads back to the status quo? I, just likce CCP, simply believe players will adapt and the game will continue on much as if nothing had changed. Basically I don't overreact like you and baltec, I rationally look at the change, conclude that it's not a particularly big deal, makes sense and improves balance, then accept it. Teckos Pech wrote: And a 30% buff to a ships EHP is not a slight change. When you just say it straight out with no context, sure, but when you consider the actual mechanics that go into a freighter avoiding being ganked, the existence of their EHP at all is a very minor factor, so an increase really isn't that big a deal. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jaantrag 42	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:10:15 - [1258] - Quote 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 ...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17475	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:29:56 - [1259] - 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 - [1260] - 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:54:51 - [1261] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That's not choosing that's having something forced upon you. Every single small group out there is getting hit hard by this change. You mean all those small groups that don't gank freighters? You have the choice of how to adapt to the change. Of course you do have the choice of "cry and hope CCP feels sorry for you" but that's not likely to help really. baltec1 wrote: Again bullshit. Point out to me in what world 157,000 ehp is a small amount. Points at reality This one. When taking the EHP change in context with the other factors that affect ganking difficulty, it's a small change to overall ganking difficulty. baltec1 wrote: You saying 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. As shown by your near total lack of addressing the DCU mod itself. Yes, but I'm only well known for those things by people like you who will slander the ever living **** out of people to push your own agenda. The reality is that I participate in ganking, fully understand why it exists, don't at all wish for it to be removed but do think there are serious balance issues. Your problem is that if someone says "this should be harder" and it would negatively affect you, you have this instant keejerk reaction and take what they said as "this entire playstyle should be removed". That's your own problem and doesn't really affect me. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 20:58:09 - [1262] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. That logic only works if: 1. You actually have to spend 1.25b more (you don't) 2. You've already depleted every target that would be viable (which would be further proof that ganking need balancing) and 3. That the increase in EHP won't make more players take bigger risks in freighters (dumb people are gonna be dumb). The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.27 21:09:55 - [1263] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Actually 2.5 billion more given expected drop rates...but yeah, you have to pass up targets you would have ganked before this change. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.27 21:19:17 - [1264] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. That logic only works if: 1. You actually have to spend 1.25b more (you don't) 2. You've already depleted every target that would be viable (which would be further proof that ganking need balancing) and 3. That the increase in EHP won't make more players take bigger risks in freighters (dumb people are gonna be dumb). The point is, if you have to have more ships or better ships, which you admit, then you need to have higher value cargoes as well. Now maybe people will go, "Oh yay an EHP buff," and stuff even more valuable stuff in their freighters and everything will be "fine". Or maybe they don't and ganking goes down. So, here you are arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and ignoring the underlying dynamic. If the cost of ganking goes up by X ISK then ganking (for profit) will need to hit freighters with 2X additional in cargo. To be quite explicit: Let Y be the minimum cargo value to justify a gank. Let X be the increase in costs of ganking. The new "minimal" cargo value is Y + 2X. Since X > 0 it follows that Y + 2X > Y. Now if we define A as the set of freighters that have cargo of value Y or greater, the set B of freighters with cargo value of Y + 2X is smaller and inside set A (A contains B). Define m as a measure of sets A and B. m(B) < m(A). That is, there are less freighters to gank. Thus, less ganking. The only way to avoid this conclusion is that A and B grow by comparable amounts which is very restrictive hypothesis. It could happen, but it is quite unlikely. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 21:55:22 - [1265] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: The point is, if you have to have more ships or better ships, which you admit, then you need to have higher value cargoes as well. Now maybe people will go, "Oh yay an EHP buff," and stuff even more valuable stuff in their freighters and everything will be "fine". Or maybe they don't and ganking goes down. 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. Teckos Pech wrote: That is, there are less freighters to gank. Thus, less ganking. Nope. See you were OK up to this point, but saying "thus less ganking" insinuates that every possible freighter carrying Y + 2X is already being ganked. If there are 20 dumb freighters a day carrying at least Y and only 10 of those carrying Y + 2X, but gankers only kill 5 dumb freighters per day, then the same number of ships will be destroyed, there will simply be more from the Y + 2X lot rather than the lower value ones. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17475	Posted - 2016.02.27 22:03:34 - [1266] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 22:06:35 - [1267] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Less targets, yes, less ganking, no. Again, you are making the assumption that gankers have already exhausted every single target in that value bracket. There is absolutely no evidence of this and I find that assumption to be highly doubtful. This is very very basic stuff, so you can only be deliberately missing that distinction. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17475	Posted - 2016.02.27 22:14:11 - [1268] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Less targets, yes, less ganking, no. Well there's a prime example of retardation right there.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.27 23:05:36 - [1269] - Quote 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! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17477	Posted - 2016.02.28 00:51:40 - [1270] - 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7364	Posted - 2016.02.28 02:05:11 - [1271] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. I understand, I simply disagree. You understand that just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean you are automatically right, yes? Oftentimes neither opinion is right, they are simply two ways of seeing the situation. You have a complete inability to have a reasonable discussion without simply attacking people who disagree with you, this is obvious from your past discussions whether I'm involved or not. Basically, you need to grow up. Either way, change is coming, adapt or quit, don't really care which . The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.28 05:08:02 - [1272] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: The point is, if you have to have more ships or better ships, which you admit, then you need to have higher value cargoes as well. Now maybe people will go, "Oh yay an EHP buff," and stuff even more valuable stuff in their freighters and everything will be "fine". Or maybe they don't and ganking goes down. 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. Teckos Pech wrote: That is, there are less freighters to gank. Thus, less ganking. Nope. See you were OK up to this point, but saying "thus less ganking" insinuates that every possible freighter carrying Y + 2X is already being ganked. If there are 20 dumb freighters a day carrying at least Y and only 10 of those carrying Y + 2X, but gankers only kill 5 dumb freighters per day, then the same number of ships will be destroyed, there will simply be more from the Y + 2X lot rather than the lower value ones. That is possible, but neither of us have the data to support our positions. The conclusion that there will be less "gankable" freighters is inescapable though. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17483	Posted - 2016.02.28 05:17:45 - [1273] - 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4771	Posted - 2016.02.28 05:27:30 - [1274] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Agreed. And including the buff to ships that never fit a DC is just dumb and designed to nerf freighter gangking. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 830	Posted - 2016.02.28 06:37:14 - [1275] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17485	Posted - 2016.02.28 10:31:24 - [1276] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7365	Posted - 2016.02.28 11:14:27 - [1277] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The goal of this change is to make the DCU less of a must have mod. 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. 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. It's part of CCPs "get rid of non-choice actions" thing. Like with clones, there's no good reason not to turn the module on, so having it active just adds an extra click to everyone's jump procedure. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Captain Campion Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North 20	Posted - 2016.02.28 11:25:38 - [1278] - Quote 'Basic' Damage Control is redundant - just remove it.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17485	Posted - 2016.02.28 12:37:54 - [1279] - 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 835	Posted - 2016.02.28 13:16:55 - [1280] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: It's happening! We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading. Thanks! Any idea when these might be on Singularity? 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.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1621	Posted - 2016.02.28 14:16:01 - [1281] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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 The freighter buff ccp has said was intentional and not a side effect 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 As for weather freighters need a buff idk mine have really never been caught all that often unless I was just lazy and decided to auto pilot. I also don't fly them all that much as dst generally get the job done for my needs I have also only ever ganked 2 one of which was a JF in low so on that end I also have little experience bit from what ccp had said the bid to them was not unintentionally done Citadel worm hole tax
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7365	Posted - 2016.02.28 14:49:59 - [1282] - Quote baltec1 wrote: There is no change, stop lying. There definitely is a change. Check the OP, they put up numbers and everything. What you mean to say is "there's not enough of a change to satisfy me", so again, why don't you make a suggestion rather than just saying "you're wrong CCP". baltec1 wrote: DCU after this change loses none of its power, every ship that fits it today will fit it after this change. I guarantee you are wrong, since I know for a fact I won;t have it on some ships. 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. Some fits you can remove the DC, take less of a defense hit than you used to and add to other attributes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17485	Posted - 2016.02.28 17:52:59 - [1283] - 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 - [1284] - 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 - [1285] - 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).
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4772	Posted - 2016.02.28 18:42:42 - [1286] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Yeah, I'm dying to see one of these fits myself. I doubt we will. I get what Lucas is saying, but with a DC II in the lows you get a pretty big boost to hull EHP as well as more modest increases to armor and shields. The nice thing about the DC II is that it buffs all aspects of defense. The added DPS on the other hand is much more limited. So with a DC II you get almost 2.5x in hull EHP plus the increase in armor EHP plus the increase in shield EHP....much like you do today. Without a DC II post patch you'll simply get a 1.5 increase in hull EHP and no added EHP in shields or armor. Adding a DC II to a typhoon increases the EHP almost by 50%. Post patch it will be only slightly less. Removing the DCII will mean a 25% drop in EHP. Adding another damage mod will have a tough time compensating. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Desiderya Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade 1104	Posted - 2016.02.28 18:45:12 - [1287] - Quote DC is a powerful module. It's not surprising that fits that try to maximize their ehp or resists end up using it. Especially long range/kiting ships can get by without, now even more readily so. The big change here are mostly the passive damage controls, which will most likely also be handy in gate/station camps when latency (or cloaks when going onto a smartbomb camp) are in play. As far as freighter ehp goes. Isn't this just all a public display of crocodile tears in an environment where (jump) freighters are getting ganked running empty , even those without triple expanders? It's all visible on zkill. You'll also find essentially empty triple bulkhead Obelisks there, ganked with catalysts. That may not happen anymore with an ehp buff. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1112	Posted - 2016.02.28 19:54:54 - [1288] - Quote 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. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4772	Posted - 2016.02.28 19:59:14 - [1289] - 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. Nooooo....my anshar with 880,000 EHP!!!!!! "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4772	Posted - 2016.02.28 20:00:29 - [1290] - Quote Desiderya wrote: DC is a powerful module. It's not surprising that fits that try to maximize their ehp or resists end up using it. Especially long range/kiting ships can get by without, now even more readily so. The big change here are mostly the passive damage controls, which will most likely also be handy in gate/station camps when latency (or cloaks when going onto a smartbomb camp) are in play. As far as freighter ehp goes. Isn't this just all a public display of crocodile tears in an environment where (jump) freighters are getting ganked running empty , even those without triple expanders? It's all visible on zkill. You'll also find essentially empty triple bulkhead Obelisks there, ganked with catalysts. That may not happen anymore with an ehp buff. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. If your JF is getting ganked in HS you are indeed truly, truly terrible (and you truly, truly deserve what you got). [Hint: Emergency cyno] "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17486	Posted - 2016.02.28 20:08:24 - [1291] - 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!
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6985	Posted - 2016.02.28 20:51:00 - [1292] - Quote Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7367	Posted - 2016.02.29 00:12:11 - [1293] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What ships? I went over all the ships you fly and all of them are worse off without the DCU. No you didn't, you went over doctrine ships for fleet based combat, most of which are fit in the same was. This is exactly what I've been saying, that you are consider fits only from a limited viewpoint. Consider that not everyone fits in the same ways or for the same reasons and people put different amounts of preference on different stats. Being able to keep some of the defense while improving another area guarantees that at least some people will use it. Again though, make a suggestion if you want to improve it. Just saying it's wrong is pointless. baltec1 wrote: Why do you fit them now? Because right now they give a small amount more defense than they will, so right now removing them drops the ship below what would be considered an acceptable level. Afterwards it won't. baltec1 wrote: Name them. No, because all you'd do is decide that you have a different preference for the stats and claim you;d fit it another way. How you would fit a ship isn't relevant when talking about how everyone else will fit their ships, so I have no intention of turning this into an EFT warrior discussion. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4774	Posted - 2016.02.29 04:37:02 - [1294] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: What ships? I went over all the ships you fly and all of them are worse off without the DCU. No you didn't, you went over doctrine ships for fleet based combat, most of which are fit in the same was. This is exactly what I've been saying, that you are consider fits only from a limited viewpoint. Consider that not everyone fits in the same ways or for the same reasons and people put different amounts of preference on different stats. Being able to keep some of the defense while improving another area guarantees that at least some people will use it. Again though, make a suggestion if you want to improve it. Just saying it's wrong is pointless. baltec1 wrote: Why do you fit them now? Because right now they give a small amount more defense than they will, so right now removing them drops the ship below what would be considered an acceptable level. Afterwards it won't. baltec1 wrote: Name them. No, because all you'd do is decide that you have a different preference for the stats and claim you;d fit it another way. How you would fit a ship isn't relevant when talking about how everyone else will fit their ships, so I have no intention of turning this into an EFT warrior discussion. Please. You can't even answer questions straight up. Will doctrine ships not fit a DC? No. The one's that use them will still use them. Are there other ships that might have used them, but no longer will...you hide be the usual hand waving and total Bravo Sierra. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
FT Cold FUITA Dead Terrorists 53	Posted - 2016.02.29 06:11:58 - [1295] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Yeah, I'm dying to see one of these fits myself. I doubt we will. I get what Lucas is saying, but with a DC II in the lows you get a pretty big boost to hull EHP as well as more modest increases to armor and shields. The nice thing about the DC II is that it buffs all aspects of defense. The added DPS on the other hand is much more limited. So with a DC II you get almost 2.5x in hull EHP plus the increase in armor EHP plus the increase in shield EHP....much like you do today. Without a DC II post patch you'll simply get a 1.5 increase in hull EHP and no added EHP in shields or armor. Adding a DC II to a typhoon increases the EHP almost by 50%. Post patch it will be only slightly less. Removing the DCII will mean a 25% drop in EHP. Adding another damage mod will have a tough time compensating. I think you're a lot more likely to see them dropped on anything that fits less than two damage mods currently. I'd expect to see it most on t1 frigates and destroyers for short fights. For something like a buffer frigate that's already fairly tanky, like the merlin, trading a DC for a magstab make sense for fights against a SAAR or single MASB fits and is a pretty viable trade. Even a small amount of DPS makes a big difference in a fight vs an active tank ship once you've broken their active tank. Otherwise, I think that the change will mostly benefit anti tackle cruisers and maybe a few other kiting ships. If flown right, ships like the cookie cutter nomen or RLML SFI are only ever really dealing with drone DPS. For them, I don't think you'll see extra damage mods fit. In the case of the nomen, it makes fitting a second nano a little more viable and given the nerf this playstyle took from the hictor buff it's not going to break the game. In terms of the balance between the gained DPS vs lost EHP, pretty much any scenario from the above examples would result in proportionately more EHP being lost than DPS gained, but that isn't really a bad thing. For most frigates, not fitting a DCU and gaining the new base resist to structure is enough new buffer to tank one more volley. I think that's the kind of balancing that's good for keeping high risk, high reward gameplay in check. Time will tell, but I don't think this change is going to result in a big disturbance to the current metagame, just a little tweaking in specific corners of it. As for this thread, as usual, it's devolved again into a couple of parties engaged in a pointless struggle to win unwinnable arguments. To an outsider, both sides look absolutely insane and could probably benefit from a little stint in the time-out corner.
DeLaBu Digital Origami Evictus. 31	Posted - 2016.02.29 06:20:22 - [1296] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: [quote=BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip] --snip-- You can continue the arguments...... I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter Sounds like one of the more sensible people here. A freighter on AP carrying 10bil through high-sec will still be very worth it to gank after this. These changes may reduce some of the lol-lets-gank-an-empty-tanked-freighter silliness going around though. IMO this was getting a bit too much and a freighter buff was needed. Apart from buffing freighters, I like it that DCUs will become a bit more optional now.
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1099	Posted - 2016.02.29 08:09:33 - [1297] - Quote Gentlemen, what makes you think that freighters will in the end receive structure EHP buff if stated reason is to counteract DC changes, which freighters can't fit? Sure, exception is possible. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7367	Posted - 2016.02.29 08:17:12 - [1298] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Will doctrine ships not fit a DC? No. The one's that use them will still use them. I didn't say they wouldn't, If you actually read, what I was stating is that I don;t only fly doctrine ships, so baltec claiming to have looked at every ship I fly is horseshit, as usual. FT Cold wrote: Time will tell, but I don't think this change is going to result in a big disturbance to the current metagame, just a little tweaking in specific corners of it. As for this thread, as usual, it's devolved again into a couple of parties engaged in a pointless struggle to win unwinnable arguments. To an outsider, both sides look absolutely insane and could probably benefit from a little stint in the time-out corner. I don't expect it to be a big disturbance, what I'm disputing is baltecs ridiculous claim that zero ships will remove the DC. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4777	Posted - 2016.02.29 08:36:19 - [1299] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Will doctrine ships not fit a DC? No. The one's that use them will still use them. I didn't say they wouldn't, If you actually read, what I was stating is that I don;t only fly doctrine ships, so baltec claiming to have looked at every ship I fly is horseshit, as usual. FT Cold wrote: Time will tell, but I don't think this change is going to result in a big disturbance to the current metagame, just a little tweaking in specific corners of it. As for this thread, as usual, it's devolved again into a couple of parties engaged in a pointless struggle to win unwinnable arguments. To an outsider, both sides look absolutely insane and could probably benefit from a little stint in the time-out corner. I don't expect it to be a big disturbance, what I'm disputing is baltecs ridiculous claim that zero ships will remove the DC. Okay, so you can't post a current fit that does have a DC, but post patch won't. Whatever. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17487	Posted - 2016.02.29 17:25:28 - [1300] - 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.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2636	Posted - 2016.02.29 17:46:34 - [1301] - Quote 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...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17488	Posted - 2016.02.29 19:16:00 - [1302] - 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.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2303	Posted - 2016.02.29 19:27:18 - [1303] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Gentlemen, what makes you think that freighters will in the end receive structure EHP buff if stated reason is to counteract DC changes, which freighters can't fit? Sure, exception is possible. The OP, where it is stated that the Freighters get the same bonus and it is an intended nerf to ganking. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.02.29 20:50:34 - [1304] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Okay, so you can't post a current fit that does have a DC, but post patch won't. Whatever. It's not that I can't, it's that I won't. I'm not turning this it an EFt war over how you guys would fit your ships. Yes, By keeping the DC, it gains a heap of defense, but when defense isn't the only thing you care about, the loss of less defense following this change when removing the DC will encourage at least some people to not choose the DC. Saying that it makes zero difference is a lie, and to be quite honest I'm surprised that you of all people are letting him slide with that one. 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. No you haven't, at most you've gone over every ship I've been killed in. Mainly because having 16 accounts I find it very doubtful that you even know half the ships and fits I fly. Yet another complete and utter fabrication from yourself. Also, EHP isn't everything I'll sacrifice 1/3 EHP on some of my ships quite happily for a boost in other areas, but perhaps removing the DC as it stands would be too far. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mag's Azn Empire 21342	Posted - 2016.02.29 23:03:14 - [1305] - Quote It's not that I didn't do my homework, it's that the dog ate it. True story. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17489	Posted - 2016.03.01 00:48:08 - [1306] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.03.01 08:10:14 - [1307] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Not sure what's better, that he thinks losing 1/3 of his ehp 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! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17490	Posted - 2016.03.01 10:45:46 - [1308] - 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 486	Posted - 2016.03.01 12:19:21 - [1309] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time. Seinfeld wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with that Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4777	Posted - 2016.03.01 15:07:01 - [1310] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Okay, so you can't post a current fit that does have a DC, but post patch won't. Whatever. It's not that I can't, it's that I won't. I'm not turning this it an EFt war over how you guys would fit your ships. Yes, By keeping the DC, it gains a heap of defense, but when defense isn't the only thing you care about, the loss of less defense following this change when removing the DC will encourage at least some people to not choose the DC. Saying that it makes zero difference is a lie, and to be quite honest I'm surprised that you of all people are letting him slide with that one. Well, in a strict sense you are right. Taking a DC off of a ship post patch won't "hurt" as much as it would pre-patch. However, from my stand point and in a functional sense you are wrong. For me if a ship had a DC before the patch it will still have one after the patch. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.03.01 16:09:30 - [1311] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You will have 1/3 less ehp than everyone else, you will die first every time. 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. Teckos Pech wrote: Well, in a strict sense you are right. Taking a DC off of a ship post patch won't "hurt" as much as it would pre-patch. However, from my stand point and in a functional sense you are wrong. For me if a ship had a DC before the patch it will still have one after the patch. And for me not all of them will. I'm not at all disputing that CCP could make the DC less important than they currently have planned and not even disputing that it would be a good thing for them to do so (though depending on how they did it, ships that can fit a DC but don't already would be seriously buffed or seriously nerfed), I'm simply disputing the idea that the change will have zero uptake, which baltec is claiming. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17494	Posted - 2016.03.01 16:57:18 - [1312] - 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.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 415	Posted - 2016.03.01 17:23:18 - [1313] - Quote Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is... ...to make the unwarranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.03.01 17:31:54 - [1314] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. And your point is what? We all know that defense decreases when you remove a defensive module, yet people still forego defensive modules for other modules. Again, you are only ever coming from a point of view where the only thing that matters is raw EHP, which is not the only thing players look for. That's no possible way you still don't get this, so stop trolling. Masao Kurata wrote: Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is... ...to make the completely warranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances. That's good news, thanks. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17494	Posted - 2016.03.01 17:42:20 - [1315] - 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.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 756	Posted - 2016.03.01 18:22:33 - [1316] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Well, it's been pushed to sisi now and it seems that Fozzie's response to the controversy is... ...to make the unwarranted buff a tiny bit bigger, at exactly 34% hull resistances. 1% difference, everyone break out the pitchforks! rabble, rabble, grrr CCP, grr freighters /s this thread... priceless Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17495	Posted - 2016.03.01 18:24:07 - [1317] - 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.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 756	Posted - 2016.03.01 18:44:58 - [1318] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17495	Posted - 2016.03.01 18:51:52 - [1319] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.03.01 19:53:34 - [1320] - Quote 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? baltec1 wrote: DCU adds more to a ships tank than any other mod you can fit. The same reasons we all fit it now still apply. The same reason you fit it still applies, because apparently you don't care if your ships moves at 3m/s, can't target or damage for **** as long as it's EHP is really high. People who don't only care about EHP now have more choice with slightly less crippling repercussions. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 20:25:51 - [1321] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7386	Posted - 2016.03.01 21:04:33 - [1322] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? What part of "the module does less" do you not understand? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 21:35:41 - [1323] - 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3007	Posted - 2016.03.01 21:43:30 - [1324] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 21:59:22 - [1325] - 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3007	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:03:53 - [1326] - Quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:09:11 - [1327] - 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3007	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:14:52 - [1328] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1296	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:18:20 - [1329] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Sorry but he's bang on. You can't take a module deemed "must fit", buff the fits using it and claim "Look, it's now less desirable! Because everyone using it is not even stronger" The very notion is ridiculous. The oxymoron to end all oxymorons. Ed: It is like saying "Hey guys, ganking is too good so we're going to go ahead and buff catalyst and talos DPS"
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3007	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:24:10 - [1330] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Sorry but he's bang on. You can't take a module deemed "must fit", buff the fits using it and claim "Look, it's now less desirable! Because everyone using it is not even stronger" The very notion is ridiculous. The oxymoron to end all oxymorons. Ed: It is like saying "Hey guys, ganking is too good so we're going to go ahead and buff catalyst and talos DPS" Actually you can, because the module is less desirable. If they halve the impact of say.... Weapon Upgrades but then give a 10% buff to weapons base damage, fits using weapon upgrades are less desirable, regardless of the end result overall. So no, it's not ridiculous, you just have no idea how to do an independent assessment of a single factors impact & value, vs the overall value of an entire package.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1296	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:32:07 - [1331] - Quote No, it is not. It is not only still 100% essential for non half assed snowflake bullshit which isn't relevant, it's now even more effective in its role. The number of people in this thread who actually think the hull resists are why you fit a DC is mind boggling. Truly mind boggling. Let me repeat it again. If you nerf a DCU down to 0% hull resist it is still essential for serious work. Because you're not fitting it for the hull resists.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 22:53:06 - [1332] - 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3007	Posted - 2016.03.01 23:03:59 - [1333] - Quote 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.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4778	Posted - 2016.03.01 23:14:43 - [1334] - 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. Unfortunately you have to fit the DC to a ship and the buff to ship hull resists indirectly provide a very small buff to the DC. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.01 23:20:41 - [1335] - 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
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3013	Posted - 2016.03.01 23:51:50 - [1336] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 And I have Bingo! Moving goalposts argument played by Baltec completes the set! Yea..... No, I didn't miss the context of the discussion, you have decided to move your argument after you got called out on an outright lie, and pretend you were talking about something else. Which is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, and the point you were replying to at the time.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7387	Posted - 2016.03.02 00:00:59 - [1337] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. No, it doesn't. The combination of the DCU and your ships base stats provide more, but the DCU itself provides less, thus is less important overall. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Sorry but he's bang on. You can't take a module deemed "must fit", buff the fits using it and claim "Look, it's now less desirable! Because everyone using it is not even stronger" No, he's completely wrong. Let's make an extreme example, and imagine they changed all ships adding on all the bonuses of the DCU to it's base stats minus 2% hull resists. Then they make the DCU only add 4% hull resists. A ship fitting that after would be 2% better off in terms of EHP, but he DCU itself is basically useless because it's providing nearly none to that benefit. Scaled down, that's exactly what's happening here, while the ships may be better off if they keep the DCU now compared with the old DCU, they lose LESS by removing it than they used to lose by removing it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2304	Posted - 2016.03.02 00:19:18 - [1338] - Quote Very glad to see nothing much changed here. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
The Ginger Sith Ministry of War Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2016.03.02 05:50:56 - [1339] - Quote while attending the mass test on sisi i tested out the new DCU II it seems they decided to set the static hull resist at 34% instead of 33% (could change tho) when i added DCU II to any ship that allowed it the ship would sit at 61% the exception to this is the hecate while in defensive mode would go up to 74% and marauders in bastion would go up to 73% i think it was. obelisk showed around 490,000 ehp with 3 x bulkhead. faction/officer/deadspace dcu where untestable as they mearly added their names with no stats so i doubt they where even added to the loot drop table at the time i was on sisi. the change looks interesting and looking forward to it we shall see how it plays out :P
Cristl 355	Posted - 2016.03.02 06:05:24 - [1340] - Quote Sheesh...you lot Baltec, your maths is wrong, or you're trolling. The DCII itself is being nerfed: it will give the same bonuses to shield and armour ehp, while increasing hull ehp by 67% (rather than by 150% as on TQ). That's a nerf. However, baltec is also correct that the DCII will still be too good - it still buffs shield and armour ehp by too much non-stacking penalised ehp. Very few fits will drop the DC, maybe a tackle or kiting ship will go for a prop enhancer for better speed tank and/or tactical purpose (get the tackle there faster). Not many though. Maybe a tracking enhancer. Fozzie, grab the beast by the horns and nerf the shield and armour components. Maybe 7.5% and 10% respectively, on the DC II.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7388	Posted - 2016.03.02 08:14:12 - [1341] - Quote Cristl wrote: Very few fits will drop the DC But not zero. Cristl wrote: Fozzie, grab the beast by the horns and nerf the shield and armour components. Maybe 7.5% and 10% respectively, on the DC II. You have to consider though that the options are then either to add the additional defense to ships base stats, or accept the nerf to the DC without adjustment. If they adjust the ships, then fits that will still fit a DC gain nothing, while fits that don;t gain the extra defense on top of their other stats. If they choose not to adjust the ships, the fits that use a DC will lose a mass of defense, while ships who could use the DC but don't lose nothing. I think they are taking a measured approach because they don't want to end up breaking the balance too much. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.02 09:39:57 - [1342] - 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1299	Posted - 2016.03.02 09:55:16 - [1343] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. No, it doesn't. The combination of the DCU and your ships base stats provide more, but the DCU itself provides less, thus is less important overall. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Sorry but he's bang on. You can't take a module deemed "must fit", buff the fits using it and claim "Look, it's now less desirable! Because everyone using it is not even stronger" No, he's completely wrong. Let's make an extreme example, and imagine they changed all ships adding on all the bonuses of the DCU to it's base stats minus 2% hull resists. Then they make the DCU only add 4% hull resists. A ship fitting that after would be 2% better off in terms of EHP, but he DCU itself is basically useless because it's providing nearly none to that benefit. Scaled down, that's exactly what's happening here, while the ships may be better off if they keep the DCU now compared with the old DCU, they lose LESS by removing it than they used to lose by removing it. Except like I said the hull resists are absolutely NOT EVER why this is fit outside of bullshit snowflake stuff. IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR Is it clear enough now?
soliketotallydude Republic University Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2016.03.02 11:03:05 - [1344] - Quote What is the pricing on the Syndicate damage controls in the syndicate LP stores going to be, and will they be available as 5-run BPCs like other hardeners or just as the finished module?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3013	Posted - 2016.03.02 11:03:53 - [1345] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Except it's NOT A BUFF. Because the old DCU gave 13% to shields, 15% to armour and 60% to hull. And if we still had the old DCU with the hull resist buff you would be getting 73.6% Hull resists. So NERF! The base hull resist change is a separate change from the DCU stats, so you can't roll the two into one and claim the module has been buffed. Seriously, you are outright lying or have turned into a complete idiot unable to do basic maths in the last week. I'm favouring the former because I really don't think you are that stupid. And you did move the goalposts because you tried to make it an argument about 'you missed the context' when you specifically were replying to the numbers of the DCU itself. So you are lying yet again on that front. I guess you are trying to just throw enough mud that something sticks so you can pretend you were right. And Morrigan, we know that's your argument, but it's irrelevant, because the DCU is still getting nerfed. It's just not a big nerf. Lucas & I have never said most fits won't change because the Shield & Armour resists are the same. But some fits do use a DCU in order to have some hull buffer. And since the RAH shares it's stacking penalty with the DCU certainly armour can consider a wider range of fits.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17496	Posted - 2016.03.02 12:21:33 - [1346] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:01:27 - [1347] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Except like I said the hull resists are absolutely NOT EVER why this is fit outside of bullshit snowflake stuff. IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR IT IS FOR THE NON STACKING PENALIZED SHIELD AND ARMOR Is it clear enough now? No, because YOU ARE STILL ONLY TALKING ABOUT EHP Ships have more stats than just that, so yes, if your only objective is to make your EHP as high as possible, the DC is a must have module, but if you aren't only interested in EHP, other modules will now be slightly more reasonable choices as you don;t zero out your hull resist buffer, but gain the benefit of the other modules. A lot of the reason people fit a DCU is because they don't want to instantly pop when they hit their hull, and the DCU makes evaccing in hull a possibility on a wider range of ships. These native resists will now do that, so people who fitted a DCU for that reason alone will certainly look at other options. baltec1 wrote: It doesn't matter that the 34% of the hull comes from the buff to the ship 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 Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17497	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:22:21 - [1348] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:34:23 - [1349] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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 if you only care about EHP and ignore all other ship stats. FTFY. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1299	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:37:23 - [1350] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: A lot of the reason people fit a DCU is because they don't want to instantly pop when they hit their hull, and the DCU makes evaccing in hull a possibility on a wider range of ships. These native resists will now do that, so people who fitted a DCU for that reason alone will certainly look at other options. The fact a heap of people clearly have no clue how these things actually work doesn't invalidate it as a must have module. Balancing around stupid people is a bad place to start. You're going to end up with stupid results, like this. Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet. And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them. The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17498	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:38:36 - [1351] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: FTFY. 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 486	Posted - 2016.03.02 16:58:21 - [1352] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: The fact a heap of people clearly have no clue how these things actually work doesn't invalidate it as a must have module. Balancing around stupid people is a bad place to start. You're going to end up with stupid results, like this. Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet. And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them. The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive. Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 487	Posted - 2016.03.02 17:15:18 - [1353] - Quote Oh, and by the way, passive module? My Blockade Runners are going to love this. My lowslot is ready. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Violet Crumble Funtime Factory 794	Posted - 2016.03.02 17:28:44 - [1354] - Quote Just in case Fozzie is still reading this, this Extra Cedits video provides a good explanation of the issue I have with the blanket change, especially the summary statement at the end: http://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs In the end, this change reduces challenge for players like me and just becomes more punishing for the players that normally present the challenge I need to plan for. It's a bad change for both of us, for a module that isn't even relevant to the class of ships I fly most often. Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 17:45:05 - [1355] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet. But again, you are still only talking about raw EHP. It's perfectly reasonable that someone wasn't willing to zero off their hull resists to gain some damage, but would be willing to cut them to 34% for the same. Morrigan LeSante wrote: And all these geniuses who ditch the DCU, well they're all going to hit hull a hell of a lot faster and the pissant native resists on it is not going to save them. But that doesn't matter, since the point is to act as an emergency buffer. The problem is that ships fit for non-hull tank, armor more often than shield, hit hull and their HP vanishes in an instant before they have time to react. A 33% resist significantly increased that emergency buffer. Up until now you pretty much had to sacrifice a low slot to do that, but now you won't. Morrigan LeSante wrote: The correct way to make this change was to hammer the shield and armor resists and do nothing else. Then the module looks less attractive. Except then ships who previously did fit the DCU get crippled, ships that didn't become OP and balance is broken anyway. The idea here isn't to remove the DCU, but just blunt it down just a fraction. baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 17:49:03 - [1356] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship. So you're saying make other modules better than it, thus make it completely useless, and in at the same time totally cripple ships that currently use a DC relative to ships that don't. Good job. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17498	Posted - 2016.03.02 18:13:55 - [1357] - 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 487	Posted - 2016.03.02 18:18:34 - [1358] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Khan Wrenth wrote: Yes. Precisely this. In fact, I'd say you have to seriously nerf the shield resist before it becomes more desirable (or at least debatable) to put on a Power Diagnostic. And for armor, you have to hammer it to the point where it becomes debatable against a second EANM or a reactive. Until you do both of those things, it's still going to be the single-best module to put on your ship. So you're saying make other modules better than it, thus make it completely useless, and in at the same time totally cripple ships that currently use a DC relative to ships that don't. Good job. Why are you still here? You have no idea what you're blathering on about, and last time I checked you inferred that people having opposing opinions to yours was some sort of conspiracy. I shouldn't dignify you with a response, because people might mistake that for you having something valuable to add to the discussion and normally worthy of response. But, like an evolution denier with an hour-long infomercial on TV, we can't just let that go unchallenged. Now with your latest fail, you quoted me saying that the DC should be competitive but not outright better than certain modules, but then you went ahead and accused me of asking for it to be completely useless. Seriously Kell, you have no apparent connection to reality, you can't even remain connected to the very thing you're posting. Quit EvE. Sparing everyone else having to read your posts is possibly the only good thing you can contribute at this point. In case you also cannot understand what is inferred without being outright said, I'll repeat myself: DCU too powerful for primary defense layers. If the Devs want to actually achieve their goal of making the DCU "Good, but not a must have", then they can't keep DCU stats as strong as they currently are. Hence, nerf shield and armor resists." There. Now with that having been said three times (original post, twice here now), be gone, don't return until you establish some sort of connection to the real world. Capiche? Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 19:15:38 - [1359] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Faster ships always die? 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17498	Posted - 2016.03.02 19:32:54 - [1360] - 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.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4782	Posted - 2016.03.02 21:13:32 - [1361] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Besides, in every case I checked, the primary tank gain (shield or armor) was greater than the hull gains. I'm sure there are some hilarious snowflake fits where this is not true but it holds for the majority. The smart player is not giving up a DC, ever, for a serious fleet. But again, you are still only talking about raw EHP. No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output. Pre and post-patch the DC will end up adding pretty much the same EHP to a ship, yes? Note, I am not saying the stats are the same, but at the end of the fitting process a given ship with a DC II will have the same EHP before and after the patch. You'll still get the same boost to shield resists, the same boost to armor resists, and with the boost the hull resists the same boost to hull resists...so the EHP will be the same (actually slightly better post patch by 0.4% for hull EHP, but put that aside). Now it is true that the hull EHP will not be reduced as much by taking off the DC II, but you will lose the shield and armor bonus to those resists entirely. Now you keep insisting that EHP is not everything, and you are correct, but the question is what will a player put in that now empty slot? A damage module? Okay, fine...but the boost the damage modules is in the neighborhood of 10% and 10.5%. Further, if you have one already fit you'll get stacking penalties. So, if the removal of the DC reduces you EHP by more than 10.5% (and usually it does) then it is probably not going to be a good idea. While you will be doing 4-10% more damage you'll also be considerably easier to kill. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.02 21:39:12 - [1362] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output. No, it's really not. Every single time you guys have made an argument, it's been about how much the defense will drop. Defense isn't; all that matters v0v. YOU say it outstrips what other modules can do, but YOU are placing value on the properties of a ship. Other people place different amounts of value on different stats. What you refuse to accept is that people have different preferences to you, which is ridiculous. Teckos Pech wrote: Now it is true that the hull EHP will not be reduced as much by taking off the DC II Yup, and thus the removal of it will make less of an impact, therefore more people will be more likely to opt not to use it, do you not agree? All I'm saying is that the number of people choosing not to use it after the patch that did before is greater than zero. Teckos Pech wrote: Now you keep insisting that EHP is not everything, and you are correct, but the question is what will a player put in that now empty slot? A damage module? Okay, fine...but the boost the damage modules is in the neighborhood of 10% and 10.5%. Further, if you have one already fit you'll get stacking penalties. So, if the removal of the DC reduces you EHP by more than 10.5% (and usually it does) then it is probably not going to be a good idea. While you will be doing 4-10% more damage you'll also be considerably easier to kill. A whole range of modules. I don't value EHP the same as other stats on all my ships. Yield on a mining barge for example I generally value much more than EHP since EHP can be made up for with evasion, as long as my base defense and agility are at a reasonable level. Damage on a mission blitzer is generally favourable, though I need to know that if I run into trouble I won't be vapourised. Could the DCU be reduced more, sure, but they have to be pretty careful they don't cripple the ships that would have used it before relative that those that wouldn't. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4782	Posted - 2016.03.02 23:08:22 - [1363] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: No Lucas, that is a straw man you have made up. Everyone is pointing out that the EHP gains from this module outstrips the benefits of other modules, be it other tanking modules or say modules to improve damage output. No, it's really not. Every single time you guys have made an argument, it's been about how much the defense will drop. Defense isn't; all that matters v0v. YOU say it outstrips what other modules can do, but YOU are placing value on the properties of a ship. Other people place different amounts of value on different stats. What you refuse to accept is that people have different preferences to you, which is ridiculous. Nobody has said defense is all that matters. Nobody. That is something you are ascribing to everyone who disagrees with you. And in an objective sense the gains to defense from the DC are larger than the gains from other modules. A 15% boost to overall EHP is pretty large. Most other modules will not provide a benefit that large in percentage terms. Now, maybe I care much, much more about speed so I give it a heavier weight so that a 6% boost to speed is seen as more desirable than the benefits of EHP. I would argue however that given the pre-post effects of a DC you would not have been fitting one in the first place. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1302	Posted - 2016.03.03 08:16:20 - [1364] - Quote Let me get this straight. Everyone fits it today because of the EHP boost. You're actually complaining people are looking at the EHP results when considering the rebalance? uuummm...lol...I guess Here's the thing, the hull gains on anything not a capital are so minor that if any fit was viable without a DCU today, it would already not be running one. The change to make it less desirable has not really worked as intended, because it remains a mandatory tanking mod for all serious ships. And yes, EHP isn't everything, but considering the primary reason they are fit is in fact EHP and specifically armor/shield boost is going unchanged there remains exactly no reason to change fits. As I say, special comedy snowflake crap aside.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2323	Posted - 2016.03.03 08:26:32 - [1365] - Quote Let's summarize this thread and the changes to the DC: 1) If you fit it for the non-stacking shield and armor bonus like you would on a shield or armor tank fit which are ALMOST ALL fits, it will not change anything, you don't care about the hull bonus anyway, you still want to fit it. 2) If you fit it because you are an elite PvPer who tanks with hull, nothing will change since this is the only module which gives you additional resists to hull, you HAVE to fit it. The only thing that seams to come out of this is a buff to Freighters who could not fit them in the first place. Well played Fozzy, well played. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Anthar Thebess 1469	Posted - 2016.03.03 08:35:11 - [1366] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Let's summarize this thread and the changes to the DC: 1) If you fit it for the non-stacking shield and armor bonus like you would on a shield or armor tank fit which are ALMOST ALL fits, it will not change anything, you don't care about the hull bonus anyway, you still want to fit it. 2) If you fit it because you are an elite PvPer who tanks with hull, nothing will change since this is the only module which gives you additional resists to hull, you HAVE to fit it. The only thing that seams to come out of this is a buff to Freighters who could not fit them in the first place. Well played Fozzy, well played. And T1 Indy ships that never fit damage control. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.03 08:44:08 - [1367] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Nobody has said defense is all that matters. Nobody. That is something you are ascribing to everyone who disagrees with you. No, it's a natural progression of the fact that every time someone suggests that players might actually like to fit a non-defensive module, there's a chorus of "BUT THE EHP LOSS!". Teckos Pech wrote: And in an objective sense the gains to defense from the DC are larger than the gains from other modules. A 15% boost to overall EHP is pretty large. Most other modules will not provide a benefit that large in percentage terms. And if were all sitting around objectively fitting ships like good little EFT monkeys then I'd agree, but ship fitting isn't objective, it's entirely down to individual preference and use. Teckos Pech wrote: Now, maybe I care much, much more about speed so I give it a heavier weight so that a 6% boost to speed is seen as more desirable than the benefits of EHP. I would argue however that given the pre-post effects of a DC you would not have been fitting one in the first place. That depends entirely on how much preference you put on it. Zeroing hull resists is a bit more of a sacrifice than dropping them to 34%, so some people will fall within that category of did want before, dont; want after. That's what they are going for. People like baltec seem to be pushing for a situation where noone in their right mind would bother using a DC. I don;t believe that's what CCP are going for. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1303	Posted - 2016.03.03 09:50:32 - [1368] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: but ship fitting isn't objective, it's entirely down to individual preference and use. Said no fleet FC, ever.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.03 12:14:41 - [1369] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17498	Posted - 2016.03.03 12:48:05 - [1370] - 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.03 13:15:34 - [1371] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17498	Posted - 2016.03.03 13:30:25 - [1372] - 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?
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 836	Posted - 2016.03.03 13:39:07 - [1373] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. 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! Just spent a few hours on SISI playing with the "new" DCU. Anyone who uses a DCU now on a fit will continue to do so. My T2 haulers have a little more EHP with hull resists (no DCU fitted) My JF has a reasonable buff (no DCU) The rest of my fits - NO change, with the built in hull resist and shield, armor resists unchanged the DCU still has exactly the same use as it does now. Only issue I have with the new DCU is i kept trying to activate it and ended up off lining it. That I'll get used to. New DCU is a bit of a buff for those fits that don't or can't fit a DCU (T1, T2 haulers, freighters, some fits on smaller ships), other than that it gives exactly the same resist profile it does now. Someone may come up with some niche fits that no longer use a DCU but they will have the same drawback as they do now - a lower resist profile. NB; The bonus from the new DCU is the officer and faction modules, they will when used correctly give a really nice EHP buff to just about any ship worth spending the isk on. 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.
Cristl 355	Posted - 2016.03.03 13:53:03 - [1374] - Quote You **** ranting on about nothing have now blown this thread to such a size that Fozzie will never read it. If we could have just recommended a decrease in the shield and armour resistances (keeping the hull changes) then the job would be done.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2309	Posted - 2016.03.03 14:38:34 - [1375] - Quote Cristl wrote: You **** ranting on about nothing have now blown this thread to such a size that Fozzie will never read it. If we could have just recommended a decrease in the shield and armour resistances (keeping the hull changes) then the job would be done. But, that's not what I wanted. I like that the damage control is a damn near mandatory module. I wouldn't want to see it actually become less useful. And, frankly, I don't care one bit about whether freighters got a decent buff out of this change, because I don't fly one in high sec and I won't ever be shooting one in high sec. If I should happen to find one in 0.0, it will die so fast anyway that it won't matter (and if it lives long enough for someone else to try to save it, so much the better, we all get a fight out of it!). Fozzie's job here was not actually to make the DCU less useful, it was to slip through a small nerf to freighter ganking with the minimum amount of teeth-gnashing and frothing at the mouth. I'd say he did this pretty well. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Cristl 355	Posted - 2016.03.03 15:29:13 - [1376] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: But, that's not what I wanted. I like that the damage control is a damn near mandatory module. I wouldn't want to see it actually become less useful. And, frankly, I don't care one bit about whether freighters got a decent buff out of this change, because I don't fly one in high sec and I won't ever be shooting one in high sec. If I should happen to find one in 0.0, it will die so fast anyway that it won't matter (and if it lives long enough for someone else to try to save it, so much the better, we all get a fight out of it!). Fozzie's job here was not actually to make the DCU less useful, it was to slip through a small nerf to freighter ganking with the minimum amount of teeth-gnashing and frothing at the mouth. I'd say he did this pretty well. I don't care about the freighter effects either, but mandatory modules are piss-poor design: they could just be baked into the hull and a relevant slot removed. We should always be pondering the pros and cons of modules, not just automatically grabbing certain mods because they're head and shoulders above the rest in their class. It's lazy.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.03 15:34:11 - [1377] - Quote Cristl wrote: You **** ranting on about nothing have now blown this thread to such a size that Fozzie will never read it. If we could have just recommended a decrease in the shield and armour resistances (keeping the hull changes) then the job would be done. The job wouldn't be done though, because any ship that used to use the DC would be losing a chunk of their defense while any ship that didn't use the DC wouldn't lose a thing, so it would be a direct nerf to a whole range of fits. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4782	Posted - 2016.03.03 15:45:57 - [1378] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Let's summarize this thread and the changes to the DC: 1) If you fit it for the non-stacking shield and armor bonus like you would on a shield or armor tank fit which are ALMOST ALL fits, it will not change anything, you don't care about the hull bonus anyway, you still want to fit it. 2) If you fit it because you are an elite PvPer who tanks with hull, nothing will change since this is the only module which gives you additional resists to hull, you HAVE to fit it. The only thing that seams to come out of this is a buff to Freighters who could not fit them in the first place. Well played Fozzy, well played. You forgot: - T1 Indy ships that never fit damage control. - Capitals and supers So it is even more of a must have module. To quote Ima, "Well played Fozzy, well played." "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Cristl 362	Posted - 2016.03.03 16:49:30 - [1379] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Cristl wrote: You **** ranting on about nothing have now blown this thread to such a size that Fozzie will never read it. If we could have just recommended a decrease in the shield and armour resistances (keeping the hull changes) then the job would be done. The job wouldn't be done though, because any ship that used to use the DC would be losing a chunk of their defense while any ship that didn't use the DC wouldn't lose a thing, so it would be a direct nerf to a whole range of fits. Indeed it would. And that would be a good thing. To be honest, the whole childish "any time something is reduced in power (nerfed) it's a bad thing for the universe" mantra grinds my gears.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 154	Posted - 2016.03.03 17:49:58 - [1380] - Quote I got some things to do in this thread. Please expect a bit of a wait. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department *I do not respond to Evemails.*

exiik Shardani Terpene Conglomerate 53	Posted - 2016.03.05 14:18:27 - [1381] - Quote hey guys what about smartbombing? After DC going to be passive, there is just very little chance to smartbomb interceptor, scanning or kite (no one forget turn on DC anymore) ship in one alone smartbomb BS.... :-( is there plan to boost smartbombs a little? sry for my English :-(
Chill'4 Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.03.05 15:14:07 - [1382] - Quote DC is still a little too strong. The problem i see is that it needs to be a really strong module or it wont ever get used, This is because its too 'general purpose'. If you lowered the shield and armor resists then in most cases a more specialised module would be better. Id like to suggest keeping it an active module, but also increasing the cap use to something similar to reactive armor hardeners. This means its still a worthwhile choice, but comes at a price more representative of its power. It also enables counterplay. A DC simply gives too much gain for it to be a passive module imo.
CHASE TRICKED razer industral 1	Posted - 2016.03.05 22:15:43 - [1383] - Quote cant believe i read the first 7 pages about freighters but i don't think ima like it cause i have a 2 billion isk nestor ive been runnin and i liked that the t2 dc was top of the line i got the best shield booster the best shield amps 2 pithum c type hardeners got a faction cpu and power diagnostic and now my damage control is no longer going to be the best and if i wanted anything up there like the best shield hardener cost bout what 5bisk when there available damage controls are used how much more often than dcs witch means the price is going to be even higher so what im getting at is my top of the lien ship is no longer the best and ima have to put more billions of isk into it getting it back up there. i think they should give everyone one of the top of the line dcs when they release them
Droidster Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 227	Posted - 2016.03.05 22:53:57 - [1384] - Quote Right, we need to maintain the current suicide ganking "balance".
Wimzy Chent-Shi Unkindness Incorporated Who Dares Wins. 40	Posted - 2016.03.06 08:04:17 - [1385] - Quote can we get blue DCU too? The price difference will be huge going from green to purple, but that EHP increase looks so good, I would love something inbetween. Others call me weak for not condescendingly speaking to plebs, but they are those speaking to plebs at all fortunately only those in "imperium" are plebs.
Ford Fugger xXFuggerXx 1	Posted - 2016.03.06 19:29:34 - [1386] - Quote Will rats have the base hull resists too?
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 843	Posted - 2016.03.07 04:24:49 - [1387] - Quote Ford Fugger wrote: Will rats have the base hull resists too? I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner. Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned. For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3140	Posted - 2016.03.07 04:34:30 - [1388] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Ford Fugger wrote: Will rats have the base hull resists too? I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner. Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned. For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide. You mean like freighters and ganking? Hmm EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.07 08:03:38 - [1389] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: You mean like freighters and ganking? Hmm The different being that rats are currently somewhat balanced while gankers are OP. It's not in CCPs best interest to nerf PvE, there's nothing really to gain from it, but reigning in gankers a bit and brining freighter EHP more in line with other capital ships is a positive change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 42	Posted - 2016.03.07 11:37:19 - [1390] - Quote ISD Max Trix wrote: I removed some off topic post. This thread is no longer about the DC changes, its back to arguing about Ganking v Anti Ganking again. So I will keep the lock on here for 24. 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.

Cyrek Ohaya Blazing Sun Group 22	Posted - 2016.03.07 17:05:02 - [1391] - Quote Considering that almost everything from rigs, shield extenders, armor plates and hardeners, etc have a penalty associated with them, it baffles me up to this point that this well sought module has nothing to tax you on except for a low slot. It just makes you think, a capacitor flux coil with 39% capacitor regeneration but a penalty of 20% less total capacitor makes it "balanced"(for example), but unattractive to use because of an inherent penalty, then do you think players will continue using a Damage control module if a -10% less armor penalty was attached to it? perhaps 20%? Yes, I absolutely think they will.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.07 17:43:49 - [1392] - Quote 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. Cyrek Ohaya wrote: Considering that almost everything from rigs, shield extenders, armor plates and hardeners, etc have a penalty associated with them, it baffles me up to this point that this well sought module has nothing to tax you on except for a low slot. It just makes you think, a capacitor flux coil with 39% capacitor regeneration but a penalty of 20% less total capacitor makes it "balanced"(for example), but unattractive to use because of an inherent penalty, then do you think players will continue using a Damage control module if a -10% less armor penalty was attached to it? perhaps 20%? Yes, I absolutely think they will. Agreed that would reduce the use further, but the problem they have is that the DC is already in heavy use, and if they cripple it too much they run the risk of throwing the ships that can but don't use it out of balance with the ones that do, as it would only be punishing the latter. I think they are being deliberately light footed in the approach to this to avoid too much of an issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see more changes down the line if use stats don't drop the amount they are aiming for. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3032	Posted - 2016.03.07 20:12:51 - [1393] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: I suspect not. There's no reason to buff them in this manner. Their modules do not behave like the ones we players use for one thing and no NPC that I've ever seen has structure resist above 0%, meaning if they had DCU's they never seem to use them. Ergo they don't seem to use them because they don't have DCU's. I don't even think they have hardeners as their resist tables never change under any circumstances once spawned. For another thing, this is a move to balancing a module we players use. Buffing rat structure resist would be a general PVE nerf and has nothing to do with CCP's objectives with module tiericide. Rats don't use modules. They have fake scripted behaviour instead. So they don't actually use their capacitor at all, and it's why quite a few modules don't actually work on rats, because they are scripted hard coded objects.
Quinten Sarn BANISHED. The WeHurt Initiative 10	Posted - 2016.03.08 16:46:13 - [1394] - Quote my main issue with these changes is that you're effectively nerfing a lot of cpu tight fits, especially on frigates, because previously we had the 17CPU IFFA and now we'll only be getting a 20cpu variant. most of the frigs i use, especially minmatar and amarr, only fit by 0.1-1 cpu, and these changes might mess up a lot of nice fits that have been thought of over the years. I'd like to add that overall these are good changes in my opinion, just somewhat of a nuisance in certain aspects.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17505	Posted - 2016.03.08 19:31:21 - [1395] - 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.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2256	Posted - 2016.03.08 21:16:46 - [1396] - Quote 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 ... I'm my own NPC alt.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 841	Posted - 2016.03.08 22:28:29 - [1397] - 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 ... Fitting requirements for what have changed? T2 still has the same fitting and attributes. Meta 4 is the only loss but can be replaced with the Radical, which now has the same attributes as T2 for half the CPU. Pretty much all fits that work now will work tomorrow, they just may cost a bit more for the meta DCU fits. 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.
Iria Ahrens Space Perverts and Forum Pirates 829	Posted - 2016.03.08 23:04:10 - [1398] - Quote Just a bit confused on the whole DC thing. Mainly because of the graph in the OP. The problem is DC seems to be divided into two major variants. The first line of DCs starts with Basic Damage Control. The second line of DCs starts with Damage Control I. The Basic variation list was basically all weaker and needed tiericide. But what happens to the modules not listed? Basic Damage Control F84 Local Damage System GLFF Containment Field Interior Force Field Array Systematic Damage Control Damage Control I Emergency Damage Control F85 Peripheral Damage System I Pseudoelectron Containment Field i Internal Force Field Array The bold modules are not listed in the graphic. Are they being removed entirely or renamed? My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17505	Posted - 2016.03.09 00:39:37 - [1399] - 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 841	Posted - 2016.03.09 01:19:55 - [1400] - Quote Iria Ahrens wrote: Just a bit confused on the whole DC thing. Mainly because of the graph in the OP. The problem is DC seems to be divided into two major variants. The first line of DCs starts with Basic Damage Control. The second line of DCs starts with Damage Control I. The Basic variation list was basically all weaker and needed tiericide. But what happens to the modules not listed? Basic Damage Control F84 Local Damage System GLFF Containment Field Interior Force Field Array Systematic Damage Control Damage Control I Emergency Damage Control F85 Peripheral Damage System I Pseudoelectron Containment Field i Internal Force Field Array The bold modules are not listed in the graphic. Are they being removed entirely or renamed? Going by whats on the test server the "unlisted" modules have been absorbed into the new modules. I had a few dozen Internal force field arrays (they were a good investment for those not quite enough cpu fits), which are now IFFA. 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.

Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2016.03.09 09:50:54 - [1401] - Quote 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 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17505	Posted - 2016.03.09 11:05:54 - [1402] - 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.
Santo Trafficante Kira Inc. FETID 44	Posted - 2016.03.09 12:26:02 - [1403] - Quote <<< Nerfed
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 511	Posted - 2016.03.09 12:57:43 - [1404] - Quote As a reminder, I did mention my Blockade Runner being very happy with this change. By extension, all cov ops vessels will probably start fitting this module as it is now passive. As it used to be an active module, I'm willing to be a lot of cov ops vessels didn't bother since they are cloaked and unable to activate modules 99% of the time. If there was an objective to reduce the use of the module, making it passive was a nice change for us, but you'll have to now overcome the increased use of this module from cloaky ships. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2016.03.09 14:13:51 - [1405] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1331	Posted - 2016.03.09 16:22:24 - [1406] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: 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. Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how they work. They are exactly as essential as they were 24 hours ago. What we have, is a nerf to tight fitting, a massive freighter buff and no incentive to NOT fit a DCU in anything remotely serious. Swing and a miss given the stated "intent".
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2325	Posted - 2016.03.09 17:48:09 - [1407] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Seth Kanan wrote: 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. Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how they work. They are exactly as essential as they were 24 hours ago. What we have, is a nerf to tight fitting, a massive freighter buff and no incentive to NOT fit a DCU in anything remotely serious. Swing and a miss given the stated "intent". The stated "intent" was clearly a smokescreen for the freighter buff. Not that I mind that, but that is what it was... I was a bit shocked at just how many of my tight fits will have to be completely redone, based on these changes to DCU's, target painters, and scramblers. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17505	Posted - 2016.03.09 18:11:23 - [1408] - 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2652	Posted - 2016.03.09 18:34:19 - [1409] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Seth Kanan wrote: 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. Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how they work. They are exactly as essential as they were 24 hours ago. What we have, is a nerf to tight fitting, a massive freighter buff and no incentive to NOT fit a DCU in anything remotely serious. Swing and a miss given the stated "intent". The module is just flat out too good still when no other options really end up being better in pretty much any scenario...
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.09 19:23:23 - [1410] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We have real counterplay lol. Frostys Virpio wrote: The module is just flat out too good still when no other options really end up being better in pretty much any scenario... Even in the scenario where I want my ship to go faster but have at least 30% hull resists and have only one remaining lowslot? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2654	Posted - 2016.03.09 19:32:53 - [1411] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Even in the scenario where I want my ship to go faster but have at least 30% hull resists and have only one remaining lowslot? Can you post a fit to demonstrate this use case? EDIT : Also, can you explain where your hull resist fit idea comes from since your hull resist is highly irrelevant in most case as long as you end up with more total buffer. It's not like hull is a tanking layer where we aim for anything but raw EHP since we can't count on efficient logi/local reps to make good use of those resist.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 844	Posted - 2016.03.09 20:13:28 - [1412] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: We have real counterplay lol. Frostys Virpio wrote: The module is just flat out too good still when no other options really end up being better in pretty much any scenario... Even in the scenario where I want my ship to go faster but have at least 30% hull resists and have only one remaining lowslot? In that sort of fit you would never have used a DCU. So what your saying is, a Ceptor with 30% hull resist I can fit a speed mod in that last low slot, which is what I used to do before the changes - Even without the 30% hull resist. Nothing changed - Except your nano fit now has 30% hull resist it never had before. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.09 20:40:33 - [1413] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Can you post a fit to demonstrate this use case? I can, but I won't. Since any fits posted would just be EFT warriored to death about how they'd be better if X, because people seem to be incapable of understanding that different people have different pinions about what stats they want on their ships and thus there's more than one way to fit a given ship. Frostys Virpio wrote: EDIT : Also, can you explain where your hull resist fit idea comes from since your hull resist is highly irrelevant in most case as long as you end up with more total buffer. It's not like hull is a tanking layer where we aim for anything but raw EHP since we can't count on efficient logi/local reps to make good use of those resist. I might just want it. Sgt Ocker wrote: In that sort of fit you would never have used a DCU. So what your saying is, a Ceptor with 30% hull resist I can fit a speed mod in that last low slot, which is what I used to do before the changes - Even without the 30% hull resist. Nothing changed - Except your nano fit now has 30% hull resist it never had before. Of course I would, because prior to this change to hit my criteria of 30% hull resists I would have been forced to fit a DCU and thus be limited on speed. I'm sure it is what you used to do and will continue to do, and when the entire playerbase consists of just you, that will be important. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2658	Posted - 2016.03.09 20:49:45 - [1414] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I might just want it. Why do you want 30% hull resist? What does 30% hull resist give you to trigger the need to get it? Achieving a fit with an arbitrary requirement that is no better at anything than another fit is what we mean by no fit that used a DC will not still use a DC. People will of course EFT warrior fits to death because people are use to thriving for more efficient fits. If you can't provide a reason why you would want 30% resist on a particular fit, there is no reason to get it. I want to shoot laser out of my megatron sure is a good way to "rationalize" a megatron with laser fitted but that's still a stupid fit no matter how much of my own requirement were met. So again, why the arbitrary 30% hull resist? What is the real goal of such ship? Why does it only has 1 low remaining to get the additional speed you want it to get? EDIT : Quoting was hard...
bubee Olacar Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.03.09 20:50:41 - [1415] - Quote 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. base price of a freighter hull is 1.2Bil plus whatever cargo he is carrying another 1-xx billion. 30 gank fit catalysts cost 60-90 million vs 40-60 million for 20. so you bring 10 extra pilots and the gank team looses an extra 20-30 million in ships. still a small fraction of the loss the freighter pilot has to suck up. So what is all this complaining about? 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? 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, jump maybe dozens of systems, fleet up, get into position and then blow up the freighter. if they gank side wants to gank they should be required to be setup at the gate, or a short jump away and when their scout calls a target jumping in they warp to gate and engage. being able to do whatever the hell you want because your bumper can hold the target indefinitely with no repercussion seems like a horribly one sided gank friendly mechanic. why not make it so when warp is initiated a timer starts, after 2 minutes or 5 minutes or whatever the warp engages unless the target was damaged by say 10% of EHP( I.e. no noob ship shooting it once to reset the timer.) or as been suggested before make repeated bumping an aggressive act with Concord response? Like I said I am a newbie so maybe this mechanic makes sense in some way I am just not getting.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17505	Posted - 2016.03.09 22:34:19 - [1416] - 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 846	Posted - 2016.03.10 00:03:18 - [1417] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Can you post a fit to demonstrate this use case? I can, but I won't. Since any fits posted would just be EFT warriored to death about how they'd be better if X, because people seem to be incapable of understanding that different people have different pinions about what stats they want on their ships and thus there's more than one way to fit a given ship. Frostys Virpio wrote: EDIT : Also, can you explain where your hull resist fit idea comes from since your hull resist is highly irrelevant in most case as long as you end up with more total buffer. It's not like hull is a tanking layer where we aim for anything but raw EHP since we can't count on efficient logi/local reps to make good use of those resist. I might just want it. Sgt Ocker wrote: In that sort of fit you would never have used a DCU. So what your saying is, a Ceptor with 30% hull resist I can fit a speed mod in that last low slot, which is what I used to do before the changes - Even without the 30% hull resist. Nothing changed - Except your nano fit now has 30% hull resist it never had before. Of course I would, because prior to this change to hit my criteria of 30% hull resists I would have been forced to fit a DCU and thus be limited on speed. I'm sure it is what you used to do and will continue to do, and when the entire playerbase consists of just you, that will be important. Did you fit a DCU to ceptors? Or are you just arguing "I" because you know you have no other argument? Did you actually aim for 30% hull resists on nano fits or are you again using meaningless examples? PS; The entire player base doesn't need to be "just me" there are some doctrines around that are flown by thousands that never relied on 30% hull resists. There are and always have been ships you just didn't put a DCU on, simply because that speed mod was more important. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.10 08:12:49 - [1418] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Why do you want 30% hull resist? Mate, I might just want it. How hard is it to understand that preference exists? Frostys Virpio wrote: People will of course EFT warrior fits to death because people are use to thriving for more efficient fits. Efficient for them. I might drink a coke and you come along and go "mate, drinking water would hydrate you more efficiently" and I'd just be like "I'll stick to my coke thanks". It's not about ticking some box that one person using EFT decides to try to tick, it's about player choice which may not mate your choices. Frostys Virpio wrote: I want to shoot laser out of my megatron sure is a good way to "rationalize" a megatron with laser fitted but that's still a stupid fit no matter how much of my own requirement were met. If that's what you want to do, then yeah, that's a good way to rationalise it and I'd not sit around going "your fit is dumb". I don't care what you fit or why you fit it, and if you want to fit lasers so you can have a disco party whenever you shoot stuff, that's your choice. Sgt Ocker wrote: Did you fit a DCU to ceptors? Why are you now limiting this to ceptors? And yes, the last non-travel fit ceptor I flew had a DCU, cos I'm a goddamn hero. I lost it valiantly. Sgt Ocker wrote: PS; The entire player base doesn't need to be "just me" there are some doctrines around that are flown by thousands that never relied on 30% hull resists. There are and always have been ships you just didn't put a DCU on, simply because that speed mod was more important. Sure there are, but all I'm saying is that you claiming that you won't choose to remove a DCU doesn't mean noone in the playerbase will. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2016.03.10 09:08:56 - [1419] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1332	Posted - 2016.03.10 09:21:24 - [1420] - Quote Lucas, you do realise that this: > essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships Excludes silly snowflake fits, right? And that these changes have absolutely no bearing on serious ship fits and this it utterly fail the test of improving: >This limits fitting choice quite significantly In fact it has made many fits HARDER to fit, whilst not actually changing the primary reason for it's fitting.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17506	Posted - 2016.03.10 11:18:21 - [1421] - 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?
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 518	Posted - 2016.03.10 11:43:54 - [1422] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Red freight, the largest and most popular freight organisation in EVE is now a dubious organisation? Yes, and those Red Cross fellows are real shifty too. Keepin' my eye on them. Can't trust people not willing to take a side. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2016.03.10 13:21:06 - [1423] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? It should be 25-40 battlecruisers minimun to gank. Before it was like 20-30 destroyers, which is nothing. 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. 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2660	Posted - 2016.03.10 13:54:11 - [1424] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: People will of course EFT warrior fits to death because people are use to thriving for more efficient fits. Efficient for them. I might drink a coke and you come along and go "mate, drinking water would hydrate you more efficiently" and I'd just be like "I'll stick to my coke thanks". It's not about ticking some box that one person using EFT decides to try to tick, it's about player choice which may not mate your choices. This is a good example to build from. Drinking Coke instead of water indeed is a "lesser" choice to hydrate yourself but there are other reason to drink Coke which water just flat out can't compete with. Water does not taste like Coke for example so if you want to drink a Coke because you enjoy what a Coke taste like or even feels like, water just flat out can't compete. Someone could say you can go with Pepsi but that miss the point that they both don't taste and feel the same when drank, at least to someone who drink a lot of it. You have a reason to drink Coke over water and over Pepsi too because Coke is better at "something" over either of those in way that can't really be replicated with another product. The end specification are finality. The taste of Coke is unique so wanting that flavor is a valid reason to drink it. Wanting Coke because it has sugar in it for example is not really unless you are willing to accept you are using the wrong product to fulfill that requirment of getting sugar via a drink because you could get it in a more efficient way. The DCU falls in the sugar portion of the problem. Getting 30% resist in hull is a step to 2 possible goal. You either want more raw EHP and use resist on hull because ship have a lot of hull HP OR you somehow plan to use those resist to amplify the effectiveness of remote or local reps on this taking band. That is all that resist in hull will ever give you just like sugar in Coke will only ever work has a way to increase your blood sugar level. These goals are technically viable goal to want but they are not done effectively by those choice. Using screws in the place of nails to build something is a stupid choice in 99% of the case because it's inneficient to work with and also cost more quite often BUT if you only effectively have access to screws where you are building, they become quite a good choice. Any ship that used nails (DCU) before the patch, the use of nails (DCU) will still be optimal unless you only have screws available. Anything else will be sub-optimal. Can you still do it? You bet you can but that does not make such choice a good one. The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 43	Posted - 2016.03.10 13:55:32 - [1425] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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? It should be 25-40 battlecruisers minimun to gank. Before it was like 20-30 destroyers, which is nothing. 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. 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. Red Frog doesn't counter ganking because it's insignificant when looking at their organisation. Red Frog autopilots dozens of freighters around 24/7. That's how much they care about ganking.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17507	Posted - 2016.03.10 14:52:06 - [1426] - 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.10 15:08:09 - [1427] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lucas, you do realise that this: > essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships Excludes silly snowflake fits, right? What you call "silly snowflake fits" are simply fits you wouldn't choose though. The whole point of the fitting system is to give people freedom over how they want their ship fit, and by making the DCU module itself marginally less effective (the actual module does less) there's an automatic redaction in the likelihood for it being chosen. What you guys are complaining about is that it's not enough of a reduction, you are just unable to convey yourselves without resorting to extremes. For you the change is completely effective or completely ineffective, with nothing in between. Frostys Virpio wrote: This is a good example to build from. Drinking Coke instead of water indeed is a "lesser" choice to hydrate yourself but there are other reason to drink Coke which water just flat out can't compete with. Indeed, and in the same way there's reason to choose or not to choose a DCU based on what you are trying to get out of your ship. If raw EHP is your only focus then there's no substitute, and if speed is your focus there's mods for that too, but if you want the speed without reducing your emergency hull buffer to paper then there's been no real choice up until now. Frostys Virpio wrote: The end specification are finality. The taste of Coke is unique so wanting that flavor is a valid reason to drink it. Wanting Coke because it has sugar in it for example is not really unless you are willing to accept you are using the wrong product to fulfill that requirment of getting sugar via a drink because you could get it in a more efficient way. Sure you can, though what you are missing here is if there is more than one reason you want it or if you have any minimum criteria. You might want less sugar than a coke provides or you may want more hydration. You might want no less than 10g of sugar (or 30% hull resists), and at least 200ml of water (or your speed without the nano) but ideally you'd want as much water as you can have and do0n't even care about taste. The coke (DCU) could provide all of that above the minimum levels, but if you already had the 10g of sugar from elsewhere then you might instead choose to not have the coke and have more water instead. Frostys Virpio wrote: The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers. Or because you simply like lasers. Or because you have that hull available and need to come up with a fit to keep constant DPS while inactive for several hours to drop an unused POS. Effectively if we're going to eliminate player choice for being stupid simply because it's not what we would pick then there should just be a set list of fits and nothing else should be available. All the time the fitting system allows people to pick and choose combinations of whatever they want though I'm not going to simply invalidate fits because I'd do it differently. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17507	Posted - 2016.03.10 15:14:46 - [1428] - 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2663	Posted - 2016.03.10 15:24:38 - [1429] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers. Or because you simply like lasers. Or because you have that hull available and need to come up with a fit to keep constant DPS while inactive for several hours to drop an unused POS. Effectively if we're going to eliminate player choice for being stupid simply because it's not what we would pick then there should just be a set list of fits and nothing else should be available. All the time the fitting system allows people to pick and choose combinations of whatever they want though I'm not going to simply invalidate fits because I'd do it differently. I don't want to eliminate the choice, I want people like you to understand that all those fits are sub-par because there are better way to do the job unless hard restriction are taken into account like other hulls being un-available. You can fit your POS bashing mega if that's all there is available to you just like I can build a house by hammering screws in if there are no nails around but I'm willing to admit I'm doing something silly and it's my own damn fault that something more efficient is not available while you just say nah it's ok to use a hybrid boat to shoot lasers and anyone saying this is sub-optimal is apparently wrong because you choose to fit that.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1332	Posted - 2016.03.10 15:45:40 - [1430] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lucas, you do realise that this: > essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships Excludes silly snowflake fits, right? What you call "silly snowflake fits" are simply fits you wouldn't choose though. The whole point of the fitting system is to give people freedom over how they want their ship fit, and by making the DCU module itself marginally less effective (the actual module does less) there's an automatic redaction in the likelihood for it being chosen. What you guys are complaining about is that it's not enough of a reduction, you are just unable to convey yourselves without resorting to extremes. For you the change is completely effective or completely ineffective, with nothing in between. You're the one at the extremes end of the spectrum, I am afraid, because all typical fits needed it before and will need it tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with special silly snowflake fits, I have a number myself. But they don't come out for real work. Ever. For this reason they are not considered for balance discussion. Making a module "do less" doesn't automatically make it less attractive, especially when the main reason for sporting it is untouched. It's a bit like the T3 defensive systems changes. Values changed, but everything stayed the same.

Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 12	Posted - 2016.03.10 16:02:54 - [1431] - Quote I disagree. Counterplay should not force a hauler to have multiple accounts. I can only repeat that there is no real counter-play. The present mechanics to cope with ganking are unhandy or inefficient and therefore useless. Ganking is a very safe and easy activity. The buff to the hull was required urgently. There should be different mechanics in place for ganking to get a real risk vs. reward situation.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.10 16:06:18 - [1432] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. You won't choose them. Also not all fits are for PvP. Frostys Virpio wrote: I don't want to eliminate the choice, I want people like you to understand that all those fits are sub-par because there are better way to do the job unless hard restriction are taken into account like other hulls being un-available. That's the same thing! You want people to understand that no matter what choice they make, if it's not the choice you would make it's wrong. Frostys Virpio wrote: You can fit your POS bashing mega if that's all there is available to you just like I can build a house by hammering screws in if there are no nails around but I'm willing to admit I'm doing something silly and it's my own damn fault that something more efficient is not available while you just say nah it's ok to use a hybrid boat to shoot lasers and anyone saying this is sub-optimal is apparently wrong because you choose to fit that. It's not silly though, it's simply not the same choice you would make. Someone having a preference that doesn't match yours or doesn't meet your criteria or efficiency base on your own metrics doesn't automatically make them silly. If I choose to have a ship that I want to have a minimum of 30% hull resists an be focused on speed, I previously required a DCU and now don't. You can still turn around and tell me I'm silly for having such requirements for my fit, but your opinion is irrelevant as it's about personal preference and each players individual needs, not just what you think is important to you. Morrigan LeSante wrote: You're the one at the extremes end of the spectrum, I am afraid, because all typical fits needed it before and will need it tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with special silly snowflake fits, I have a number myself. But they don't come out for real work. Ever. For this reason they are not considered for balance discussion. Making a module "do less" doesn't automatically make it less attractive, especially when the main reason for sporting it is untouched. It's a bit like the T3 defensive systems changes. Values changed, but everything stayed the same. No, I'm really not. What I'm saying is that they intended to make the DCU mildly less efficient to reduce it as a choice a small amount, and they succeeded in doing just that. You are looking at it, thinking it's not made a big enough difference then making the wild claim that it makes no difference and won't be dropped by anyone (which I happen to know for certain is false since I've dropped a couple of DCUs already). How can you expect to be taken seriously if you make such ridiculous claims? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2664	Posted - 2016.03.10 16:11:55 - [1433] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: How can you expect to be taken seriously if you make such ridiculous claims? Says the guy who's not willing to agree a laser mega is a stupid fit.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1332	Posted - 2016.03.10 16:14:16 - [1434] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You're the one at the extremes end of the spectrum, I am afraid, because all typical fits needed it before and will need it tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with special silly snowflake fits, I have a number myself. But they don't come out for real work. Ever. For this reason they are not considered for balance discussion. Making a module "do less" doesn't automatically make it less attractive, especially when the main reason for sporting it is untouched. It's a bit like the T3 defensive systems changes. Values changed, but everything stayed the same. No, I'm really not. What I'm saying is that they intended to make the DCU mildly less efficient to reduce it as a choice a small amount, and they succeeded in doing just that. You are looking at it, thinking it's not made a big enough difference then making the wild claim that it makes no difference and won't be dropped by anyone (which I happen to know for certain is false since I've dropped a couple of DCUs already). How can you expect to be taken seriously if you make such ridiculous claims? Maybe if you stopped deliberately misquoting me.....or is it simply a comprehension issue on your part? I have always been up front and clear that my points are around mainline fleet work. You know, the type referred to by the OP. I make the claim no mainline hull use will see the retirement of the module and I stand by that. The majority of use serious cases still have this as a mandatory module. No-one gives a toss about non PvP fittings, either. Leave that crap at the door. Lets face it, if mainline doctrines were changing, we'd have examples left and right. I'd not even be arguing with because my own fittings would change. But they are not and there is a reason for that. The fact that some people are too inexperienced to understand that the module is as essential today as previously and they are unfitting it in their ignorance does not render my analysis invalid in any way shape or form. Inexperienced people making bad choices doesn't make those choices a good idea just because they do it. Millions of people smoke, doesn't make it smart.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.10 17:07:16 - [1435] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Says the guy who's not willing to agree a laser mega is a stupid fit. Of course, because I'm fully aware that I don't know every use and context of every single possible ship fitting in the game. I fully accept that there may be situations where someone's needs and preference will lead to ship fittings I'd never even considered and would not myself choose. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Maybe if you stopped deliberately misquoting me I'm not, any quotes of you are exactly what you've said. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I have always been up front and clear that my points are around mainline fleet work. You know, the type referred to by the OP. You must have a different OP to me because the one I'm seeing just talks about the DCU being "essentially a must-fit module on a huge variety of ships". I don't see any part that stats they are only talking about fleet fits. Morrigan LeSante wrote: I make the claim no mainline hull use will see the retirement of the module and I stand by that. The majority of use serious cases still have this as a mandatory module. No-one gives a toss about non PvP fittings, either. Leave that crap at the door. Non-PvPers do, and they are a massive portion of the game. All you're doing here is proving that you're only looking at a tiny portion of the game and judging the change based on that. Right here you are now demonstrating that you are only looking at PvP fleet doctrines. Since there's a huge amount of the game that exists outside of that, it would seem that looking solely at the impact a gamewide mechanic change has on those players would be a little pointless. Thanks though for taking the time to explain exactly why it is you are completely wrong. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1332	Posted - 2016.03.10 17:24:22 - [1436] - Quote Wait, you think ship balancing is about anything else other than PvP? And you're telling me you DCU a PvE fit? hahahahahaha Or that those hull resists will make you take a DCU off a PvE fit, where it should never have been in the first place? Get a grip. Your trolling is not longer even plausible.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.10 19:59:18 - [1437] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2664	Posted - 2016.03.10 20:24:26 - [1438] - 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. 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". Ishtars were not really good ships because if I used them with no drones and a full rack of civilian guns, I would not have won that many fights even before all the nerfs...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17508	Posted - 2016.03.10 20:27:38 - [1439] - 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 - [1440] - 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.

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.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 852	Posted - 2016.03.12 17:58:36 - [1471] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? Are you serious? Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%. What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before. If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is? 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 17514	Posted - 2016.03.12 18:24:38 - [1472] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7390	Posted - 2016.03.12 18:44:16 - [1473] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Are you serious? Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%. What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before. No, the DCU gives less resists, and combined with the boosted ship stats the same can be achieved. Consider this. What does removing the DCU now lose you compared to what removing the DCU lost you before? Oh look, it removes less hull resists. Sgt Ocker wrote: If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is? No, because a hull buffer is often used for evac. You know you can burn yourself down until your active tank fails then burn out, and you know that with the hull resists you'll get out on fire. Strip that resist to nothing and most ships have a paper hull tank and will get oneshotted. Unless you're dual tanking, one of those resist (armor/shield) won't matter so much either but if you had a shield ship with 0 armor resist you'd be rather weary of hitting armor too. Sgt Ocker wrote: No-one in their right mind is going to forgo a "best" resist profile for 33% hull resist. If they used a DCU before, they will still use it. You might be the odd one out who chooses not to but don't expect SRP and don't complain when the rest of the fleet ridicules you for being BAD. See here you're talking about doctrine fits. They generally focus heavily on defense so I don't expect them to drop a DCU, but since they aren't the only fits in the game, that's not very relevant. You're still thinking at this under the preconception that the only reason they could possibly have fit it was the all round defense. There are plenty of people who would rather have another stat boosted by that extra lowslot but aren't willing to lose the "HELP HELP I'M ON FIRE" hull resists that save them when mistakes have been made. Now they don't have to. 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 18:52:22 - [1474] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Because of buffs you cannot turn a profit ganking barges anymore. There is nothing to gain from barge ganking so thats stating a fact. 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. baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. baltec1 wrote:** There isn't any difference in the end result. But there certainly is a difference in the module. Imagine you have a torch in a completely dark room. Turn the torch off, you can't see. Then imagine they gave you a slightly dimmer torch but a low ambient light that makes up the difference. Now you turn the torch off and can still see a little. Suddenly turning the torch off to save on batteries isn't as bad. Sure, in some situations the ambient light might not be enough, and in some situations complete darkness is fine, but in some situations where you only needed the ambient light, that alone will do. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 852	Posted - 2016.03.12 23:02:58 - [1475] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Are you serious? Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%. What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before. No, the DCU gives less resists, and combined with the boosted ship stats the same can be achieved. Consider this. What does removing the DCU now lose you compared to what removing the DCU lost you before? Oh look, it removes less hull resists. Sgt Ocker wrote: If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is? No, because a hull buffer is often used for evac. You know you can burn yourself down until your active tank fails then burn out, and you know that with the hull resists you'll get out on fire. Strip that resist to nothing and most ships have a paper hull tank and will get oneshotted. Unless you're dual tanking, one of those resist (armor/shield) won't matter so much either but if you had a shield ship with 0 armor resist you'd be rather weary of hitting armor too. Sgt Ocker wrote: No-one in their right mind is going to forgo a "best" resist profile for 33% hull resist. If they used a DCU before, they will still use it. You might be the odd one out who chooses not to but don't expect SRP and don't complain when the rest of the fleet ridicules you for being BAD. See here you're talking about doctrine fits. They generally focus heavily on defense so I don't expect them to drop a DCU, but since they aren't the only fits in the game, that's not very relevant. You're still thinking at this under the preconception that the only reason they could possibly have fit it was the all round defense. There are plenty of people who would rather have another stat boosted by that extra lowslot but aren't willing to lose the "HELP HELP I'M ON FIRE" hull resists that save them when mistakes have been made. Now they don't have to. Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active. There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them. One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread. Too much commitment to your ideas? 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7392	Posted - 2016.03.12 23:22:27 - [1476] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active. There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them. One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread. And you're fixated on PvP ships. Look mate, it's simple. Do you seriously believe that not one player has or will remove a DCU following this change? If the answer is yes, then there's not much to do but laugh at you since we know for a fact that is false as people including myself already have. If the answer is no, then why the hell are you still arguing about it? I have no interest in flying out to have some one on one so you can prove how much better you are at combat than an industrialist. Seems like a pointless waste of my time when you are so obviously wrong anyway. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 43	Posted - 2016.03.13 09:30:14 - [1477] - Quote Here I thought Lucas Kell was an expert on ganking, turns out he's just a whiny industrialist. Color me surprised. CCP, go look at what freighters are being used and how they are fit, compared to before you announced this change. You'll find that you nerfed ganking massively. We're not talking about using ~a little more dps~.
Jin Kugu Scanners Anonymous 43	Posted - 2016.03.13 09:38:58 - [1478] - Quote Wardecs are now killing more freighters than ganking by a huge margin, please nerf wardecs.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17514	Posted - 2016.03.13 10:19:40 - [1479] - 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.
Jaantrag 57	Posted - 2016.03.13 10:52:31 - [1480] - Quote 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 ... EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7393	Posted - 2016.03.13 11:15:53 - [1481] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That change happened years ago, way to go paying attention. And yet gankers are still ganking miners, so you're confirmed to be crying over nothing. baltec1 wrote: There is nothing salty about pointing out you are making this all up. 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. Now you're whining on about old changes too. Why are you even playing this game? Sounds like you hate it. baltec1 wrote:** There really isn't. Except there is. Look at the numbers. Claiming there isn't is obviously false. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 852	Posted - 2016.03.13 21:18:35 - [1482] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active. There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them. One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread. And you're fixated on PvP ships. Look mate, it's simple. Do you seriously believe that not one player has or will remove a DCU following this change? If the answer is yes, then there's not much to do but laugh at you since we know for a fact that is false as people including myself already have. If the answer is no, then why the hell are you still arguing about it? I have no interest in flying out to have some one on one so you can prove how much better you are at combat than an industrialist. Seems like a pointless waste of my time when you are so obviously wrong anyway. Seriously, you are deranged. Did you even look at my killboard, do you know how I generate isk? Looking at EFT and saying, this ship that has always used a DCU might be better without one now - Is not smart Eve. And Lucas, I don't for one second believe ANYONE (even you if you were honest) would remove a DCU used on a ship previously due to this change. IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, except the miniscule amount of cap they used to consume. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7394	Posted - 2016.03.13 21:40:40 - [1483] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously, you are deranged. Personal attacks show a weakness of character. Get better arguments and you won't need to resort to them. Sgt Ocker wrote: Did you even look at my killboard, do you know how I generate isk? Nope, don't even remotely care since it's irrelevant to the impact DCUs have. Sgt Ocker wrote: Looking at EFT and saying, this ship that has always used a DCU might be better without one now - Is not smart Eve. Depends on the ship, fit and priorities of the user. Sgt Ocker wrote: And Lucas, I don't for one second believe ANYONE (even you if you were honest) would remove a DCU used on a ship previously due to this change. Whether you believe it or not doesn't change that it happened. Sgt Ocker wrote: IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, except the miniscule amount of cap they used to consume. It did though, that's an undeniable fact, just look at what stats the DCU adds pre and post patch. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17514	Posted - 2016.03.14 08:37:52 - [1484] - 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 - [1485] - 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7394	Posted - 2016.03.14 10:03:36 - [1486] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Pirates don't gank them anymore, code are not pirates. And the only people ganking miners are code? I think not baby puppy. baltec1 wrote: 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. Of course, because you've looked at doctrine ships and you've decide their primary statistic is defense. baltec1 wrote: Now quote everything I said and stop trying to argue with a point I never made. Its the same end result. It's not though. You are claiming there is no difference, but there is, and that difference gives people more opportunity to make different choices, and different choices have been made. baltec1 wrote: 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. Which only matters if you consider defense and damage at a 1:1 ratio of importance to each other. baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17514	Posted - 2016.03.14 12:38:50 - [1487] - 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.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 760	Posted - 2016.03.14 13:22:36 - [1488] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. 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. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7395	Posted - 2016.03.14 13:36:47 - [1489] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Again, that depends on how much you value each stat and what minimum limits you have on each. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17514	Posted - 2016.03.14 13:56:20 - [1490] - 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?

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 760	Posted - 2016.03.14 14:11:51 - [1491] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? Because before hull resists didnt have a base 33% resistance. Now the EHP difference between a DCU fit and RAH fit is not as drastic since that 33% resist helps fill the divide. From what i was looking at in EFT last night, we are talking about 1-2k EHP difference between a DCU fit and an RAH fit (with resistances shifted to kinetic/explosive). That EHP will go up though if they shoot EM/Thermal, which will surpass what a DCU could do. Yes you will lose EHP in hull, but you will have a stronger armor tank in exchange. Which depending on the scenario, could prove to be much stronger than just a DCU. This is especially true in small gang where you might have logi. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
FT Cold FUITA Dead Terrorists 53	Posted - 2016.03.14 16:23:52 - [1492] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight. It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2677	Posted - 2016.03.14 16:33:47 - [1493] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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? Cycle time and cap consumption maybe? Faster cycles are easier to shut down via neuts since they have more chance of getting a re-cycle when your cap is dry.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2366	Posted - 2016.03.14 16:52:45 - [1494] - Quote FT Cold wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight. It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives. If it is speed and signature tanking, why would it fit a DCU at all? Surely you would fit modules that made your signature and speed tank more effective? Which is Baltec's point... CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
FT Cold FUITA Dead Terrorists 53	Posted - 2016.03.14 17:14:37 - [1495] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: FT Cold wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight. It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives. If it is speed and signature tanking, why would it fit a DCU at all? Surely you would fit modules that made your signature and speed tank more effective? Which is Baltec's point... For two reasons, the first being that you need enough buffer to make it under their guns, which, in the case of taranis, you have a lot more of now thanks to the structure buff changes. The second is that you need to kill them fast. You'll still take some damage from other frigates, even if they don't have a tracking bonus, so you need to to beat their DPS and possible help as quickly as you can. You could fit speed mods, but in most scenarios where you'd want to actually fight someone, you're better off with the DPS.
Jayden Thomas Manson Family Advent of Fate 19	Posted - 2016.03.14 20:16:26 - [1496] - Quote 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units..
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 12	Posted - 2016.03.16 10:48:49 - [1497] - Quote I am surprised to hear weird stories about there is no ganking anymore. The opposite is true. Ganking is easy as ever. It takes almost nothing plus zero risk to kill some freighters and miners in highsec. Ganking is safe and one can make billions easily. Thats very bad gameplay. Truckers and miners are loosing billions and cant do anything against that because there is no counter-play. People should have at least some fun and freedom in highsec. I can only imagine how many beginners stopped playing because of ganking. The recent changes helped a little but there is still a long road to make the hauling business even remotely an option.
Fiddly Pop The Conference Elite CODE. 13	Posted - 2016.03.16 15:50:34 - [1498] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: I am surprised to hear weird stories about there is no ganking anymore. The opposite is true. Ganking is easy as ever. It takes almost nothing plus zero risk to kill some freighters and miners in highsec. Ganking is safe and one can make billions easily. Thats very bad gameplay. Truckers and miners are loosing billions and cant do anything against that because there is no counter-play. People should have at least some fun and freedom in highsec. I can only imagine how many beginners stopped playing because of ganking. The recent changes helped a little but there is still a long road to make the hauling business even remotely an option. Ganking is not that easy, we had to recruit a lot of Agents for the New Order of Highsec. It takes many people to coordinate together. There is a lot of timing involved between the many different roles. also ganking is easy to stop, stay at the keyboard and buy a permit. Permits are cheep alternatively you can find a group of friends to fly with that have pvp skills and are not afraid to get their hands dirty. you can hire AntiGanking fleets. as far as new players leaving because of ganking, here is what CCP Rise said: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221 Have a great day!
Darth Terona Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 213	Posted - 2016.03.17 02:40:47 - [1499] - Quote First let me say that I'm a big fan of code and what they do Content creation at its finest But I also have to say that a feedback thread is the place for your redderict. Please find some class

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14015	Posted - 2016.03.20 19:12:48 - [1500] - Quote Jayden Thomas wrote: 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units.. Good news! The module formerly known as Drone Control Units (being renamed to Fighter Support Units) is becoming passive in the Citadel expansion next month. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


HeXxploiT Little Red X 223	Posted - 2016.03.21 17:27:07 - [1501] - Quote I really hope you guys have accounted for the popularity of damage controls in the drop rates. If these officer modules drop at the same rate of other officer items We will never see them on market. The drop rate for officer damage controls should be triple that of other officer items MINIMUM.
Jayden Thomas Manson Family Advent of Fate 20	Posted - 2016.03.24 01:07:56 - [1502] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Jayden Thomas wrote: 2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units.. Good news! The module formerly known as Drone Control Units (being renamed to Fighter Support Units) is becoming passive in the Citadel expansion next month. Thatta kid
Bianca Niam Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2016.04.04 19:00:45 - [1503] - Quote Hate it.
Jin Kugu Make Luv Not War 44	Posted - 2016.05.09 23:11:03 - [1504] - Quote I can't wait for CCP Fozzie to reveal the buff to ganking to balance out the announced bumping nerf.


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]

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