These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Very serious danger for all people who like to do missions in faction ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#181 - 2014-02-03 23:37:36 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
dexington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Way too easy to gank with cats. 750 dps on a sub cruiser hull is absurdly OP. Thorax can get 900 which is only 150 more due drone damage.

Destroyers should have their reduced firing rate reintroduced. Was an idiotic thing to remove it.


The thorax is not exactly expensive or skill intensive, so it's not going to change anything.


take longer to warp.. that helps a lot to escape them :P


I'm confused if this is a joke or maybe I'm just not understanding.

You're saying because it takes longer for a Thorax to warp it's easier to escape them?

All gank ships will be aligned and ready to warp to zero on the warp in ship. Sometimes a neutral scanning frigate. There is no delay when they get on grid. It doesn't matter if they're in Thrashers or Maelstroms,

With the new warp mechanics if you're sitting still by the time your battleship aligns and gets to 3/4 speed needed to warp you'll be long dead. There is a good chance that at least one of the gank ships has a point... So even if you were aligned he still might get you if you're slow to warp.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#182 - 2014-02-03 23:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

The mission site is not public. There are no beacons showing in the Overview for everyone to warp towards it. The mission site is spawned specifically for the person who accepts the mission offer. Doesn't matter who actually runs the mission site, the character who accepts and completes the mission offer with the agent is the owner of the mission site.
DMC


Mission space is "public". Yes you accept the mission and yes you get the reward for completing the mission but it's still in "public" space. If CCP wanted to make missions "private" they could easily make this happen. One can argue that a mission should be private but currently CCP has chosen not made them so.

There are sites that you have to scan down. Are they not "public"?


Trust me it's really annoying to have someone warp into your mission and watch them steal your loot. Yes if your corp is worth a crap you'll have pilots online that can get them but most corps that I've been in are an unorganized mess with pilots in every part of New Eden.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#183 - 2014-02-04 00:29:50 UTC
IIshira wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

The mission site is not public. There are no beacons showing in the Overview for everyone to warp towards it. The mission site is spawned specifically for the person who accepts the mission offer. Doesn't matter who actually runs the mission site, the character who accepts and completes the mission offer with the agent is the owner of the mission site.
DMC


Mission space is "public". Yes you accept the mission and yes you get the reward for completing the mission but it's still in "public" space. If CCP wanted to make missions "private" they could easily make this happen. One can argue that a mission should be private but currently CCP has chosen not made them so.

There are sites that you have to scan down. Are they not "public"?


Trust me it's really annoying to have someone warp into your mission and watch them steal your loot. Yes if your corp is worth a crap you'll have pilots online that can get them but most corps that I've been in are an unorganized mess with pilots in every part of New Eden.

Would you concede the argument if the agent stated 'This mission is only available to you and your fleet members.'? Would that then satisfy the preponderance of mission site ownership, and appropriate aggression mechanics for the situation. Or is it simply a matter of changing the proposal to state 'Make mission sites temporary SOV of the mission owner, assigned by the Corp who has jurisdiction over the mission offer and the space they operate in.'

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Qalix
Long Jump.
#184 - 2014-02-04 01:27:59 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Qalix wrote:
Gank catalysts have a pitiful range. A range that is well within ECM burst radius.



a sure.. try to use ecm burst near a gate in a marauder and tell me how it went

As I said in another thread, so use a target spectrum breaker. The point is you have options, even if you choose not to use them. Or take the steps necessary to educate yourself about possible solutions.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#185 - 2014-02-04 01:39:32 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
IIshira wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

The mission site is not public. There are no beacons showing in the Overview for everyone to warp towards it. The mission site is spawned specifically for the person who accepts the mission offer. Doesn't matter who actually runs the mission site, the character who accepts and completes the mission offer with the agent is the owner of the mission site.
DMC


Mission space is "public". Yes you accept the mission and yes you get the reward for completing the mission but it's still in "public" space. If CCP wanted to make missions "private" they could easily make this happen. One can argue that a mission should be private but currently CCP has chosen not made them so.

There are sites that you have to scan down. Are they not "public"?


Trust me it's really annoying to have someone warp into your mission and watch them steal your loot. Yes if your corp is worth a crap you'll have pilots online that can get them but most corps that I've been in are an unorganized mess with pilots in every part of New Eden.

Would you concede the argument if the agent stated 'This mission is only available to you and your fleet members.'? Would that then satisfy the preponderance of mission site ownership, and appropriate aggression mechanics for the situation. Or is it simply a matter of changing the proposal to state 'Make mission sites temporary SOV of the mission owner, assigned by the Corp who has jurisdiction over the mission offer and the space they operate in.'


I get where you're coming from but the fact is CCP placed mission space where it's scannable. It wouldn't be hard at all to change this but CCP hasn't done so and to my knowledge has made no comment saying they might. In fact CCP encourages the opposite with ninja looting and salvaging as a profession.

Should mission space be private is a whole other argument and you might be able to convince me on this one but currently it's not.
Qalix
Long Jump.
#186 - 2014-02-04 01:41:23 UTC
This discussion began and has continued over several different threads for two specific reasons: MTU-triggered unwanted limited engagements and mission completion item theft.

The first problem has been handled. The second problem is unlikely to be changed by CCP, but lets assume that tomorrow the missions are updated to make those items unnecessary and irrelevant.

That leaves only one remaining issue why you would ever care that someone else was in your mission space, which is looting your wrecks.

Unless you've gathered everything for the thief in a nice, convenient MTU, the thief, under current mechanics, could loot exactly one wreck before he was flagged to you. The difference between the current mechanics and what you guys are suggesting is the loot of one wreck. One wreck.

In this entire discussion about flagging, it is always assumed that the mission runner will fire on the flagged ship. If it were the case that the people who hate mission invaders wanted to do something about thieves, they wouldn't be complaining about watching someone loot their wrecks! They would have killed the thief while he tried to nab more loot. If you're just watching your loot get stolen now, some new flagging system isn't going to change anything for you. If you don't fire, no friendly white knight is going to come help you out of the goodness of their hearts or hang around your particular system just waiting for some random invader to select your mission.

As for the "ownership" argument, it's ridiculous. Yes, your character generates the spawn. But all the text of the mission itself states clearly that you're being sent to some specific place within that faction's space. It might be a place within their space, it might be generated by you, but it's irrelevant, because it's faction space. You can put up your POS in faction space, but you need a lease. You own it, but you don't own the space. I cannot think of a more clear cut way of explaining it.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#187 - 2014-02-04 01:52:06 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:

Would you concede the argument if the agent stated 'This mission is only available to you and your fleet members.'? Would that then satisfy the preponderance of mission site ownership, and appropriate aggression mechanics for the situation. Or is it simply a matter of changing the proposal to state 'Make mission sites temporary SOV of the mission owner, assigned by the Corp who has jurisdiction over the mission offer and the space they operate in.'


I get where you're coming from but the fact is CCP placed mission space where it's scannable. It wouldn't be hard at all to change this but CCP hasn't done so and to my knowledge has made no comment saying they might. In fact CCP encourages the opposite with ninja looting and salvaging as a profession.

Should mission space be private is a whole other argument and you might be able to convince me on this one but currently it's not.

Yes it is not currently defined as such, and by the way the mechanics are currently, the case is definitely in your favour. But this is a suggestion of a change and with that change these are obviously 'Lore' that could be use to define a new set of Rules-of-Engagement.

As I stated in an earlier post the current Reward is almost entirely in the favour of the aggressor (In Gank/High Sec) and the Risk is all placed on the Carebear (I would prefer 'Industrious' but it doesn't apply across the board) a new balance of some sort needs to be found. Of course everyone could take on the 'Pirate' role but then who would we explode and rob to pay for our game.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#188 - 2014-02-04 02:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Qalix wrote:
Good points, and fail editing on my part

I would and continue to blow the crap out of anything that goes Flashy Red, Yellow, Blue around me (Insert funny Dr Suess thought here). As for a gank wing landing on you, this would make little difference since they have already decided to lose their ships in the 50/50 drop gamble of killing your ship.

Edit; And a Flashy group of Gankers that you aggress would not lose their kamikaze ships if you aggressed them, so yeah there are some failures in the plan. But the current plan of 'Let them bleed ISK' feels unfair or unbalanced, pick a word, it feels like they are a getting a free lunch and the Carebear is paying the bill.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#189 - 2014-02-04 05:22:48 UTC
Qalix wrote:

As for the "ownership" argument, it's ridiculous. Yes, your character generates the spawn. But all the text of the mission itself states clearly that you're being sent to some specific place within that faction's space. It might be a place within their space, it might be generated by you, but it's irrelevant, because it's faction space. You can put up your POS in faction space, but you need a lease. You own it, but you don't own the space. I cannot think of a more clear cut way of explaining it.

Now you're just using Semantics in an attempt to dismiss the proposal.

I own my home (Mission Site) which is within a City (Solar System) that is within a County (Constellation) that is within a State (Region) that is within a Country (Empire Faction).

It's still my home regardless of where it's located (Next Mission Site) and anyone who wishes to enter my home without my permission (Not Fleeted) must have legal recourse to do so, IE, Search Warrant (Personal Suspect / Criminal Flag), Court Order (War Declaration), etc.

If not, then they are trespassing and invading which makes them suspect of criminal intent, thus allowing me the right to protect my home and myself in any way necessary, up to and including the use of Lethal Force.

The only reason for having resistance to the proposal is because game mechanics currently favor a no risk activity for Mission Invasion Thief's.

Obviously neither of us is gonna change our view about this issue.


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#190 - 2014-02-04 07:51:41 UTC
Your hanger is your home.

Your proposition is far more like people who have a perfectly good driveway, but believe they own the road outside their property as well and get all stroppy when someone else parks there.
Demica Diaz
SE-1
#191 - 2014-02-04 08:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Demica Diaz
Nm [ignore]
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#192 - 2014-02-04 08:28:32 UTC
actually a closer analogy would be that your corp hanger is your home since you pay for it.

how can you own a mission site if you didnt pay for it?

atleast ccp is nice and gives you a free private hanger when you dock that you dont have to pay for that cant be invaded. a mission site is designed and intended to be open to all as ninja looting/salvaging is an ADVERTISED PROFESSION. with the carebears pampered to as soon as they start crying im surprised that even that is still possible.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3
Qalix
Long Jump.
#193 - 2014-02-04 18:15:21 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Now you're just using Semantics in an attempt to dismiss the proposal.

I own my home (Mission Site) which is within a City (Solar System) that is within a County (Constellation) that is within a State (Region) that is within a Country (Empire Faction).

It's still my home regardless of where it's located (Next Mission Site) and anyone who wishes to enter my home without my permission (Not Fleeted) must have legal recourse to do so, IE, Search Warrant (Personal Suspect / Criminal Flag), Court Order (War Declaration), etc.

If not, then they are trespassing and invading which makes them suspect of criminal intent, thus allowing me the right to protect my home and myself in any way necessary, up to and including the use of Lethal Force.

The only reason for having resistance to the proposal is because game mechanics currently favor a no risk activity for Mission Invasion Thief's.

Obviously neither of us is gonna change our view about this issue.

DMC

The phrase "you're just arguing semantics" does not mean, as most people think, "quibbling over synonyms or irrelevant word choice." Semantics is grammar, logic, meaning, and much more. Every argument you've ever had or ever will have is an exercise in semantics.

Simply declaring that the site is yours is not really a defense of your position. It would probably help to bring in semantics here and ask a question that I don't think has been asked. What does "ownership" mean in the context of EVE? More specifically and more relevantly, outside of your hangar or hold, what do you own and how do you know that you own it? (We'll assume that "you" can include a corp or alliance.)

With the exception of sovereignty, you know that you own something in the following circumstances: you anchored it; you can modify other people's permissions/access to it; you can take things from it in hisec without triggering a flag; it is in your hold or in your hangar; or you're piloting it. Sovereignty is an extension of this schema, because it uses alliance-owned devices to trigger an ownership state. It seems clear that ownership, in EVE terms, is directly related to objects.

Only in sov space do we get close to talking about "ownership" of anything but objects. It's actually sov that makes things clear in this discussion, though you seem to have rejected it in your quote above (with no real reason). There is only one way to own space, and that is through sov. The factions own all NPC space. You can tell because the system information clearly states it. There are no subdivisions of space. It's equally clear that you don't own your mission space. You're being sent on a mission. You're not being sent to your house or your backyard. The location of your mission isn't yours just because your mission is located there. A policeman's mission to clear a house of burglars does not mean that he owns the house.

The entire concept of "owning" the mission space seems to be built on a single idea: i triggered the mission, therefore the mission space is mine. Defend that position with more than simple declarations. How is an EVE mission different from a policeman sent to a home to clear out the burglars? If, somewhere in all the mission text, it was made clear that you were somehow defending your own home, you might have a point. But everything about missions argues against it: you're in some faction's space, you're dispatched to a location to remove bad guys on behalf of some faction, and the mission locations are often clearly labeled as belonging to some other group (esp the gated missions). But I saved the kicker for last. If you own it, why is it you can't go there until the agent gives you the mission? The answer is obvious.
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2014-02-04 20:45:28 UTC
Koral Eden wrote:
I'm relatively new to Eve, but have recently started soloing Level 4s. If you are using your max D-scan every 1-2 minutes you should be fine right? I keep an eye out for combat probes. Isn't that the only way for them to find and warp to you while in missions? I hope so because that is the assumption I have been operating under. I figured I could just warp to a station if they popup on D-scan.



Try 1-2s,

Not even my wormhole paranoia kicking in, You mash it like you're boosting a GF in FF8 when you are in a hole.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#195 - 2014-02-04 20:47:49 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Koral Eden wrote:
http://tinypic.com/r/2efi5c0/5

I shouldn't post it, but this is my fit I run. I know I should have a TP, I know it is over tanked. As I said I am relatively new and my combat skills as a pilot are average. I wanted a little more cushion until I find my feet. And even with this fit most level 4s are only taking me an hour. I check the missions out online before I go in and adjust missiles and my hardener accordingly. I also avoid missions with cap nuets usually.

Not only is that fit a ganker's wet dream, its just plan terrible. Not only does this fit do more DPS, but its far less of a gank magnet:

[Tengu, New Setup 1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Capacitor Flux Coil II

10MN Afterburner II
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster
Shield Boost Amplifier II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II

Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

Its even lazy man cap stable.



Not a tailored tank -1
Cap stable -1
Flying a tengu -1



Straight

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2014-02-04 21:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Anize Oramara wrote:
actually a closer analogy would be that your corp hanger is your home since you pay for it.

how can you own a mission site if you didnt pay for it?

atleast ccp is nice and gives you a free private hanger when you dock that you dont have to pay for that cant be invaded. a mission site is designed and intended to be open to all as ninja looting/salvaging is an ADVERTISED PROFESSION. with the carebears pampered to as soon as they start crying im surprised that even that is still possible.

As for ownership, I don't have to pay for the mission site. It is given to me by the agent. Without my acceptance, the site would never materialize.

In my 6 years of playing this game, I've never seen CCP promote Ninja Salvaging as an Official game play option. Please link the ad showing CCP endorsing that fact. Besides that, the proposal doesn't stop Ninja Salvaging anyway and more importantly, why should Ninja Salvaging be exempt from any risk. That alone shows how skewed the game mechanic is.

In fact Ninja Salvaging was not created by CCP. It was created by a player after the probing game mechanic was made easy with the Apocrypha Expansion in the middle of 2009. Agent mission sites and game mechanics pertaining to agents was created by CCP with the Castor Expansion back in 2003.

Obviously the agent game mechanic and mission site rules need to be updated to bring them inline with everything else in this game, especially in relation to the new Crimewatch mechanic.


Qalix wrote:
But I saved the kicker for last. If you own it, why is it you can't go there until the agent gives you the mission? The answer is obvious.

You answered your own question by stating the fact that the agent gave it to you which implies ownership. If it was meant to be a public area, there would be a beacon showing in the overview for everyone to see. Since there isn't, the site is only generated for the player who accepts the mission offer. The agent isn't giving the mission area to anyone else.

Nobody is saying make the mission site secluded. The only way someone can find the site is by scanning down a players ship with the use of COMBAT probes and then warping to that ship. The only reason for doing that is due to malicious intent. That qualifies it as a SUSPECT action.

I understand the reason for all the resistance to this proposal. It plainly takes away the no-risk feature that all Mission Invasion Thief's have exploited over the past few years. What really amazes me is that the so called high sec pirates are actually just griefers suffering from risk aversion. That makes them the biggest and loudest crybaby carebear in this game.



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#197 - 2014-02-05 01:11:16 UTC
Okay I couldn't find the commercial but CCP isn't exactly anti pirate.

Salvage is currently considered public and anyone can claim it. Ninja salvagers don't really bother me. It's Ninja looters that bother me and they already are suspect from the second they steal the first loot item.

DMC if you were to say make missions "private" (unscannable) that might work but you know as well as I that most mission runners will end up on the losing side of a PVP battle. Giving them more opportunity to PVP in their mission ship just means giving them more lossmails...

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#198 - 2014-02-05 01:50:07 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Okay I couldn't find the commercial but CCP isn't exactly anti pirate.

Salvage is currently considered public and anyone can claim it. Ninja salvagers don't really bother me. It's Ninja looters that bother me and they already are suspect from the second they steal the first loot item.

DMC if you were to say make missions "private" (unscannable) that might work but you know as well as I that most mission runners will end up on the losing side of a PVP battle. Giving them more opportunity to PVP in their mission ship just means giving them more lossmails...



Mission running implies you have a station you can dock at, and that station can be full of pvp boats that can counter things you see in space, and mission running characters inherently have combat relevant skillsets, and concord gives you the choice about whether you engage or not. You can give up the mission space, fetch a nice counter, whilst the looter loots some pitful T1 rubbish and then choose whether or not to engage based on whether or not you think his backup is close (on d-scan), and then you can wait out your timers before starting missioning again.

The satisfaction derived from finishing any of "my" content after ensuring someone else doesn't wrest it away from me is worth more than an hours nil earnings to me, and its something that we go through over and over on nullsec ded sites, residents vs gypsies.

The point to EVE really is that you are your own police, and that bad things happen to you if you can't stand up for yourself, or at the very least blueball the other pilot. In a roleplaying game, I don't understand why people choose to roleplay victims - surely you subbed to be some sort of elite space pilot ?
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#199 - 2014-02-05 02:01:59 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Okay I couldn't find the commercial but CCP isn't exactly anti pirate.

Salvage is currently considered public and anyone can claim it. Ninja salvagers don't really bother me. It's Ninja looters that bother me and they already are suspect from the second they steal the first loot item.

DMC if you were to say make missions "private" (unscannable) that might work but you know as well as I that most mission runners will end up on the losing side of a PVP battle. Giving them more opportunity to PVP in their mission ship just means giving them more lossmails...



Mission running implies you have a station you can dock at, and that station can be full of pvp boats that can counter things you see in space, and mission running characters inherently have combat relevant skillsets, and concord gives you the choice about whether you engage or not. You can give up the mission space, fetch a nice counter, whilst the looter loots some pitful T1 rubbish and then choose whether or not to engage based on whether or not you think his backup is close (on d-scan), and then you can wait out your timers before starting missioning again.

The satisfaction derived from finishing any of "my" content after ensuring someone else doesn't wrest it away from me is worth more than an hours nil earnings to me, and its something that we go through over and over on nullsec ded sites, residents vs gypsies.

The point to EVE really is that you are your own police, and that bad things happen to you if you can't stand up for yourself, or at the very least blueball the other pilot. In a roleplaying game, I don't understand why people choose to roleplay victims - surely you subbed to be some sort of elite space pilot ?


You can already shoot pilots that steal your loot. PVP in Eve goes against many pilots nature that grind missions for ISK. They grind these missions for wealth to buy shiny things for their hanger. Engaging another pilot puts the ship they're flying at risk of destruction. Losing ISK from a ship going up in smoke is just the opposite of their in game goal of making ISK.

Of course not all PVE pilots are like this but some are.
ashley Eoner
#200 - 2014-02-05 10:55:51 UTC
Jill Chastot wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Koral Eden wrote:
http://tinypic.com/r/2efi5c0/5

I shouldn't post it, but this is my fit I run. I know I should have a TP, I know it is over tanked. As I said I am relatively new and my combat skills as a pilot are average. I wanted a little more cushion until I find my feet. And even with this fit most level 4s are only taking me an hour. I check the missions out online before I go in and adjust missiles and my hardener accordingly. I also avoid missions with cap nuets usually.

Not only is that fit a ganker's wet dream, its just plan terrible. Not only does this fit do more DPS, but its far less of a gank magnet:

[Tengu, New Setup 1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Capacitor Flux Coil II

10MN Afterburner II
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster
Shield Boost Amplifier II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II

Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

Its even lazy man cap stable.



Not a tailored tank -1
Cap stable -1
Flying a tengu -1



Straight
I can't tell if you're being serious.

I've never understood why people are like "OMG TAILOR YOUR TANK!!!" when doing so slows down the whole process. It's especially true when I run batches at a time. An omni tank can work just fine..