These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Capital Q&A

First post
Author
Zhubin
Foo Holdings
AL3XAND3R.
#201 - 2015-12-20 04:47:56 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Hiljah wrote:
Let's take what I think are the most obvious examples of a skill that should be refunded to FAX / Carrier pilots:
Advanced Drone Interfacing (FAX), Fighters (FAX), Capital Remote Armor Repair Systems ( Carrier ), Capital Shield Emission Systems ( Carrier ), Capital Capacitor Emission Systems ( Carrier ), Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration ( Carrier ).

Let's say you could train each of these to 5 in 30 days.

So 60 days lost for FAX pilots, and 90 days lost for Carrier pilots.

Since we're paying for access and skills we need to calculate what skills are worth.
I have a little over 50 million sp, and I think a reasonable price for this might be 25 billion isk.
25B isk / 1.2B isk per PLEX = 20 PLEX = $400

I've paid around $550 for game time, so 400/550 = 72%
Lets call it 70% paid for SP, 30% paid for access.

Let's say you pay $11 a month,
so FAX pilots are expected to lose up to 2 x 11 x .7 = 15.40 dollars,
and Carrier pilots are expected to lose up to 3 x 11 x .7 = 23.10 dollars

This assumes more than ideal attributes and implants, and that I even want to fly either of these after the change.

It's not a lot, but it's enough to make me mad at being told I should HTFU about it, since refunding skill points wouldn't actually cost CCP this amount.



Except nothing is stopping pilots from flying both

If you trained all those skills up then you were probably using them the only thing that is changing is you won't be able to use them au the same time


The only skill I could see bedding consisted is the carrier skill as many pilots may have trained that ONLY for the logistics role


I was using them because the ship could use them. That's the whole point. They charged me for something and then changed the product out from under me.

I want to pay for content I want, not content I paid for but won't use now because it's completely different.
And yes I did pay for it. Telling me I can still use the skills is slimy shell game BS. Think about the question, "why not refund skill points?" From CCP's business perspective and the answer is, "Then they have to pay to play skill Que online more." Which is something I think we should all find disgusting.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#202 - 2015-12-20 21:52:05 UTC
Zhubin wrote:


I was using them because the ship could use them. That's the whole point. They charged me for something and then changed the product out from under me.

I want to pay for content I want, not content I paid for but won't use now because it's completely different.
And yes I did pay for it. Telling me I can still use the skills is slimy shell game BS. Think about the question, "why not refund skill points?" From CCP's business perspective and the answer is, "Then they have to pay to play skill Que online more." Which is something I think we should all find disgusting.

No, it's nothing to do with your supposed reasons.
It's to do with the fact that if they refund skill points people then immediately put them into the FOTM ships. Which are nothing related to Carriers, Logistics, and what the player has actually been doing for the last several years with those skill points.
And also consistency with previous changes.
Zhubin
Foo Holdings
AL3XAND3R.
#203 - 2015-12-21 06:18:11 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Zhubin wrote:


I was using them because the ship could use them. That's the whole point. They charged me for something and then changed the product out from under me.

I want to pay for content I want, not content I paid for but won't use now because it's completely different.
And yes I did pay for it. Telling me I can still use the skills is slimy shell game BS. Think about the question, "why not refund skill points?" From CCP's business perspective and the answer is, "Then they have to pay to play skill Que online more." Which is something I think we should all find disgusting.

No, it's nothing to do with your supposed reasons.
It's to do with the fact that if they refund skill points people then immediately put them into the FOTM ships. Which are nothing related to Carriers, Logistics, and what the player has actually been doing for the last several years with those skill points.
And also consistency with previous changes.



Hi Nevyn,
Sorry, you are commenting on the wrong thread, there are no FOTMs here. We're talking about capitals. Capitals are getting tech 2 modules so it's a good bet people will put skill points towards those.

If someone were to stupidly do something else, we'll they did pay for those skill points right?
As for "supposed reasons" I trained fighters on a triage pilot because that was the triage ship's weapon, now it isn't. Really simple.
Anthar Thebess
#204 - 2015-12-21 08:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Zhubin wrote:

Hi Nevyn,
Sorry, you are commenting on the wrong thread, there are no FOTMs here. We're talking about capitals. Capitals are getting tech 2 modules so it's a good bet people will put skill points towards those.

If someone were to stupidly do something else, we'll they did pay for those skill points right?
As for "supposed reasons" I trained fighters on a triage pilot because that was the triage ship's weapon, now it isn't. Really simple.

I trained gas harvesting V on my alts , but CCP changed way the wormholes are spawning ... will i get skills back?
( and all mining support skills also)

What about people doing invention or production, it was also changed some time ago?
Research ! Standings ... people who invested in data core agents still didn't get the refund after CCP changed way you can obtain data cores.

What about Rorqual pilots after the introduction of compression array ?
Maybe we can talk about off grid boosting alts ( that will not be off grid in the near future , so all T3 cruisers will no longer be used for this)

TL;DR:
Don't expect refund of the skill points.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#205 - 2015-12-21 11:45:07 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Zhubin wrote:

Hi Nevyn,
Sorry, you are commenting on the wrong thread, there are no FOTMs here. We're talking about capitals. Capitals are getting tech 2 modules so it's a good bet people will put skill points towards those.

If someone were to stupidly do something else, we'll they did pay for those skill points right?
As for "supposed reasons" I trained fighters on a triage pilot because that was the triage ship's weapon, now it isn't. Really simple.

I trained gas harvesting V on my alts , but CCP changed way the wormholes are spawning ... will i get skills back?
( and all mining support skills also)

What about people doing invention or production, it was also changed some time ago?
Research ! Standings ... people who invested in data core agents still didn't get the refund after CCP changed way you can obtain data cores.

What about Rorqual pilots after the introduction of compression array ?
Maybe we can talk about off grid boosting alts ( that will not be off grid in the near future , so all T3 cruisers will no longer be used for this)

TL;DR:
Don't expect refund of the skill points.
What about those who trained Triage because the carrier had a bonus to it - and soon it won't?
Can any of those you mentioned not still use the skills they trained for a specific ship on those ships?

Are your gas harvesting alts no longer able to use the ship related to those skills, or do they need to fly a whole new class of ship to use them? Does new WH spawning mean you can no longer use those skills? Or are you throwing out red herrings?

I still collect data cores from my agents with my manufacturing alts - What changed?

Sorry but Rorqual is a special case, it had limited use prior to the addition of compression arrays. In reality if your running a mobile mining outfit, it is still easier to use the Rorqual than it is to cart around another 6,000m module to anchor on a pos. Also leaves 6,000m more room for compressed ore at the end of the day. (It's called choice - Something carrier pilots won't have without using a completely new and disposable class of ship.)

Removing off grid boosts doesn't mean you can't use T3's for boosting - It simply makes it less viable to do so. Red herring.

-- - -- - -- - -- - --
With these changes getting ever closer to being part of the game, it would be nice to hear something (anything) from the development team as to what we may expect.

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.

Anthar Thebess
#206 - 2015-12-21 13:19:21 UTC
If you trained triage , then you will get Fax skills.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#207 - 2015-12-21 18:00:58 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Are those new ships removing abilities and roles (skills trained previously for a certain ship) from ANY ship they were trained for?
Will players lose the ability to utilize previously trained skills on a given ship because CCP released a new class of ship?
Your arrogance (or is it ignorance) is not becoming, it is also not going to win arguments. Generalizing and moving away from specifics, is what you lost on.
Your wrong and no matter what snide childish remarks you make, you will still be wrong.

You've come full circle again. You think that because someone trained heavy drones for their moros, they got back SP when it was removed? When supers lost access to all subcap drones?

So what makes you think that adding a new ship is going to get you a refund? Triage is'nt being removed from the game, neither are carriers. It's unfortunate for you, that you trained them for their broken aspects. But, they're non-issue portions will still be available, and you can put those skills to use, even if its a different hull.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
You expected me to believe your spreadsheet without question - When it was (rightly) questioned you got all butt hurt and started name calling - And I'm the childish one LOL
Anyone with a few active brain cells would know, that spreadsheet is not a full and accurate representation.

The problem is you never questioned it. You dismissed it without any solid reason whatsoever, a simple "I dont believe it" was all you could be bothered to offer. Then turned around and expected everyone to believe in your imaginary watch list. And of course your evience is a super-secret that you can't tell anyone, but don't worry, its true so you dont need to check. So yes, you're still keeping secrets like a schoolgirl. No surprise.

Oh, and its not my spreadsheet. If you don't believe its accuracy, you can go whine to the boys at zKill and tell them how false theor data is. Its publically available too, so verify and disprove all you like, preferably with actual evidence if you know what that is.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Trust me

No thanks

Sgt Ocker wrote:
You didn't post anything provable, just some random spread sheet - And we are supposed to take your word for it that it is correct and accurate?
I didn't get offended, why would I get offended? I know the information you posted to be grossly inaccurate and said so, that is not being offended.
You seem to be under the illusion, you know what does and does not affect me. (an internet psychologist, your not)

I linked you to a third party's spreadsheet, who got his data from a publicly available source. You're free to pull data and make your own as well. Or you could start by showing us a watchlist.

And you know nothing to be grossly innaccurate. You have nothing to prove against it. Just some strong beliefs and a bad disposition to your blob frenemies. An angry feeling you get when you think of them does not count as evidence.

If you're going to claim something, maybe you could try proving it instead of repeating "I'm right, you're wrong" over and over?

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I don't actually reply to posts, I try to interpret them to suit me and respond without addressing any of the facts.

FTFY
Anthar Thebess
#208 - 2015-12-21 18:46:39 UTC
If someone is missing some basic skills he can train them now.
Many people decided to train carrier to lvl 5 just because of the upcoming changes.
Hound Halfhand
Repo Industries
#209 - 2015-12-21 23:08:35 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
If someone is missing some basic skills he can train them now.
Many people decided to train carrier to lvl 5 just because of the upcoming changes.


Not sure if you were here for the battlecruiser split but CCP gave us tons of warning to make sure everyone who wanted them could train them to 5 to make sure you could continue to sly what you did before. When I say lots of warning, I mean over a year to train a 30 day skill.

Capitals and citadels are obviously a much larger change. Larger than anything else going back to the addition of wormholes. If CCP intended to give you the corresponding skill for the force auxiliary of you trained the carrier, they likely would have said so already. If they just drop that on people at the last minute they will get a lot of tears.

I believe if anything it will be some kind of refund tied to the release of the neural packets. Since we are around 4 months out, I am sure they already know exactly what they are doing. Whatever it is I am sure they will do it in such a way to make everyone feel like they gained something on the change. They tend to be good at that and it keeps people happy.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#210 - 2015-12-21 23:47:51 UTC
Rowells;
I haven't come full anything, my stance hasn't changed. Your the one continually moving the goal posts by trying to prove a point with as many irrelevant examples as you can dig up. 99% of people who flew dreads with drones trained the drone skills for other ships, very few if any trained them specifically for the Moros (of those I know at least). Also, just so it is very very clear, removing drones from dreads in no way forced players to fly a totally new (disposable) class of ship.

You don't seem to understand - Some players just don't want to spend billions on a class of ship that is designed to die every time it is fielded. Unless your in a group large enough to just overwhelm with numbers and so face no risk, FAX are designed to be disposable. Funny that, a blok / blob member can't see a problem with a purpose built disposable capital ship.

I'll post my watchlist - The same time you do. As I suggested 3 or 4 posts ago but you threw off and didn't - respond to what was said. Instead you try to justify your stance with rubbish and name calling. (So grown up - adult, maybe - mature, guess not)

You're sticking to "that spread sheet" is the true and accurate representation of Titans and Supers in Eve? The biased one that doesn't list, as much as it does? I have a bridge for sale, make me an offer I promise you a good deal "trust me".

I dismissed it for the same reason anyone with half an active brain cell would - Zkill board data (spend 5 mins and go look at the last 12 months of super/titan losses, they pretty much invalidate your spreadsheet) and personal knowledge. Whether you can see the sun for the clouds is about as relevant as you not trusting me - I don't care, as your overwhelming ability to NOT understand what is written in simple English is astounding. A troll (and not a very good one).
Maybe if the spreadsheet was titled correctly it would hold more weight. "Active supers in some alliances" would be a clearer representation.

Again you're attempting to be an online analyst (and failing terribly).
I honestly feel sorry for you.

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.

Hiljah
Foo Holdings
AL3XAND3R.
#211 - 2015-12-22 00:38:55 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Links

***** Siege/Dreadnoughts *****
Q) 1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low/Why would you use subcap siege dread over battleships? #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11
A) Sieged dreads have several advantages.
  • Superior range (50km from High Angle guns)
  • Resistance to EWar
  • Higher base HP
  • Provides refitting services to fleet
  • Dependant on your battleship fit, potentially cheaper to replace after loss when including insurance.
  • A jumpdrive
We want players to have interesting choices. Dreads shouldn't always be the best choice.


If my dread is going from 9k dps against battleships to 2k dps, I want my skill points refunded, and yes I'll unsub over it.
A 2k dps dread would be a hilarious joke if I hadn't already trained it.


Hiljah
Foo Holdings
AL3XAND3R.
#212 - 2015-12-22 01:01:54 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Zhubin wrote:

Hi Nevyn,
Sorry, you are commenting on the wrong thread, there are no FOTMs here. We're talking about capitals. Capitals are getting tech 2 modules so it's a good bet people will put skill points towards those.

If someone were to stupidly do something else, we'll they did pay for those skill points right?
As for "supposed reasons" I trained fighters on a triage pilot because that was the triage ship's weapon, now it isn't. Really simple.

I trained gas harvesting V on my alts , but CCP changed way the wormholes are spawning ... will i get skills back?
( and all mining support skills also)

What about people doing invention or production, it was also changed some time ago?
Research ! Standings ... people who invested in data core agents still didn't get the refund after CCP changed way you can obtain data cores.

What about Rorqual pilots after the introduction of compression array ?
Maybe we can talk about off grid boosting alts ( that will not be off grid in the near future , so all T3 cruisers will no longer be used for this)

TL;DR:
Don't expect refund of the skill points.


I don't expect them to refund skill points. I expect them to continue to do the wrong thing and lose customers.

Let's look at the first of your terrible examples.

In the case of carriers, what if the venture had "small phasers" (guns no other ship uses) and then they changed the venture into 2 ships, a phaser only ship and a gas mining ship? How worthless would the phaser skills be to you?

In the case of dreads, what if they nerfed gas mining by a factor of 4 or more, but said you could still mine rocks at the same rate? Still happy to take it like a champ?
Sim Cognito
Obani Gemini Corporation
#213 - 2015-12-23 15:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sim Cognito

  • How will Citadel Missiles and the Phoenix come into play considering the introduction of "High-Angle Weaponry" for the Gun Dreadnoughts? Will the Phoenix finally be viable in a sub-cap engagement?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#214 - 2015-12-24 14:20:00 UTC
Sim Cognito wrote:

  • How will Citadel Missiles and the Phoenix come into play considering the introduction of "High-Angle Weaponry" for the Gun Dreadnoughts? Will the Phoenix finally be viable in a sub-cap engagement?


The Phoenix is currently viable against sub capitals. It will have its own HAW variants after the change goes through.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#215 - 2015-12-26 03:42:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rowells;
I haven't come full anything, my stance hasn't changed. Your the one continually moving the goal posts by trying to prove a point with as many irrelevant examples as you can dig up. 99% of people who flew dreads with drones trained the drone skills for other ships, very few if any trained them specifically for the Moros (of those I know at least). Also, just so it is very very clear, removing drones from dreads in no way forced players to fly a totally new (disposable) class of ship.

What goalposts are you referring to, exactly?

And again, If one skill being used on another ship is ok after its been removed, then how is doing almost the same thing here, bad?

And, if they did indeed want to use those drones on the moros (which is an arbitrary reason, dependent on individual preferences) then they had absolutely no other choice, but to choose another ship to use the drones. Same goes for when they removed drones from supercarriers.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
You don't seem to understand - Some players just don't want to spend billions on a class of ship that is designed to die every time it is fielded. Unless your in a group large enough to just overwhelm with numbers and so face no risk, FAX are designed to be disposable. Funny that, a blok / blob member can't see a problem with a purpose built disposable capital ship

This is very much like todays triage carriers and to an extent, existing dreadnoughts. People use them now, and people can use them successfully. Not all the time, but that is expected, especially considering some people have a very low threshold of risk when it comes their capitals. They won't undock with overwhelming numbers or the security of replacement. As far as I'm concerned, if you won't undock a ship because you might lose it (no guarantees it will die), then I have little pity that it can't be used as safely anymore. Considering insurance exists, there is even less reason someone might be afraid to undock. A lot of people try to use big numbers like 2-3bil to lose it, when in reality, a simple insurance contract (possible exception of wormholers), will put you out less than a billion.

Maybe these carrier pilots are concerned because they never bothered to insure their ships, since the risk was so low.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'll post my watchlist - The same time you do. As I suggested 3 or 4 posts ago but you threw off and didn't - respond to what was said. Instead you try to justify your stance with rubbish and name calling. (So grown up - adult, maybe - mature, guess not)

You're sticking to "that spread sheet" is the true and accurate representation of Titans and Supers in Eve? The biased one that doesn't list, as much as it does? I have a bridge for sale, make me an offer I promise you a good deal "trust me".

I don't understand why you think the burden of proof is on me. If you're going to try and use evidence in the first place, you better be ready to show it. Or could you be lying and hoping that by turning the responsibility to me, that you won't have to actually show your watchlist? Or were you planning on making an excuse as to why my watchlist isn't good enough for you to post yours?

And I thought we already covered that the watchlist that you literally made yourself, is going to be heavily biased toward your desires, since you can literally choose who you want on it.

And since you love public intel so much, I made another parse for you:

From: https://zkillboard.com/intel/supers/
Parse: https://adashboard.info/intel/local/view/kOJMxKbD

But i'm sure that represents nothing, right? Some vague response like "It is completely and utterly false and is not representative of actual numbers, my watchlist tells me so. However, it does show how unbalanced the numbers are (even though they are wrong) and totally does not contradict my earlier statement". Something like that.

Maybe your watchlist is a better representation? I'm sure your intel is far superior to the API data from killboards. Your list has gott be like, what, a couple thousand characters? Quite amazing if it is.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I dismissed it for the same reason anyone with half an active brain cell would - Zkill board data (spend 5 mins and go look at the last 12 months of super/titan losses, they pretty much invalidate your spreadsheet) and personal knowledge. Whether you can see the sun for the clouds is about as relevant as you not trusting me - I don't care, as your overwhelming ability to NOT understand what is written in simple English is astounding. A troll (and not a very good one).
Maybe if the spreadsheet was titled correctly it would hold more weight. "Active supers in some alliances" would be a clearer representation.

Again you're attempting to be an online analyst (and failing terribly).
I honestly feel sorry for you.


It's pretty ironic that you say looking at 12 months of super kills invalidates a spreadsheet based on the same damn thing. So far, your best attempts at dodging proof have been to simply say it's wrong. You don't actually show anything, you have literally shown nothing. Maybe you'd like to show us that 12 month list of kills? Since it was so easy to bring up, maybe you'd like to share? Or are you still working on that watchlist?

You have made many claims and dismissals, which you are very good at doing, but you have always seemed to lack any kind of solid evidence. Placing the burden of proof on others, referencing personal experience, rapidly switching up the topic to avoid any attention on your mistakes, etc. Like I said, you've come full circle, your words are becoming repetitive now. I'm expecting you to reveal yourself as dinsdale any moment now.
Craven More
State War Academy
Caldari State
#216 - 2015-12-27 12:08:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Craven More
Reading through this thread so far is kinda amusing.
Why ? Because obviously people have different views and opinions, but really its all speculation until the actual changes are firmed up.
The back and forth between Sgt Ocker and Rowells, guys you have different views and are passionate about them, so props to you both, for that.
Nothing is black and white, flexibility has to be adopted by CCP, if they don't want to lose more players going forward.
It has to be recognised by CCP, that the fact is, there is a fair percentage of players out there that don't like some of the changes, so far being discussed and that they feel, they will be unfairly treated by such changes, hence they do want to have their skill points reimbursed for changes they consider to be forced upon them, without recognition of why they trained certain skills in the first place.
Then again there is also a percentage out there that argue against it.
Either way, 2016 will really be a make or break year for CCP into the 2nd decade, they have to weigh up if they can really afford to make these changes, without alienating any percentage of the player base in the process without some form of compensation.
Regardless of, if you like it or not and any prior precedents set, they have to take a serious look at re-imbursing skill points because simply put they can't afford to lose players.
They also have to re-look at the whole issue of restricting Supers / Titans to be only able to dock at XL Citadels. Tethering such ships at smaller class citadels is not considered a viable option by many players & as such there is a percentage of the community that would argue to keep the current pos system in one format or another rather than having the citadel system forced upon them.
People have to remember this thread isn't about who is right or wrong, it is about letting CCP know peoples thoughts and varried views on the proposed changes as they stand at the current time, obviously people will always agree & disagree with each other.
Nothing will change that. So can we please agree to disagree on certain things instead of rehashing it over and over.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2015-12-27 22:26:00 UTC


The Devs are in the process of designing a system where you can rip out unwanted skill points and sell them on the open market. Problem solved. Yay capitalism.

If player retention was the goal, then catering to the needs of newer players is far more important (they have much higher turnover). Giving them affordable and comprehensible access to skill points argues towards let the market decide solutions on compensation.

And skills -> isk certainly is a plus if skill point bloating is a concern.

The counter argument that a certain class of player has more isk than they could ever need is not really a relevant argument. Buy plexes for charity or something if that is the issue :).

All told, the devs have the matter in hand.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2015-12-28 13:44:48 UTC
Valeska Vasile wrote:
1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low, knowing that they will still takes ages to lock anything.

Seriously, Blap is fine. If you wait 30/60sec+ to lock something that fail to warp out or get range, then you should be able to nuke it asap.






To be frank that is enough reason for them to drop the extremely low scan res of dreads . Would be nice if you can lock a battleships before it blows up from old age :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

RcTamiya
Magister Mortalis.
#219 - 2016-01-04 11:48:08 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Valeska Vasile wrote:
1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low, knowing that they will still takes ages to lock anything.

Seriously, Blap is fine. If you wait 30/60sec+ to lock something that fail to warp out or get range, then you should be able to nuke it asap.






To be frank that is enough reason for them to drop the extremely low scan res of dreads . Would be nice if you can lock a battleships before it blows up from old age :P



You all are mad because of that "just 2k dps" while nobody ever said that this number is final ....
I'll give you one example, lets take my favourit dread, the pheonix
As we all know, you only need 2 guidiance computers, 1 explusionradius rig and a rapier with 3 TPs + Informationlinks, as
result? A Battleship even with Skirmish links is getting hit for full damage as long as it is slower than 137.6 m/s, the phoenix does NOT need drugs for this.
Now it doesn't matter how much you fix turretdreads with low tracking etc, as long as Sig and Explusionradius are 100% responsible for dmg application of missiles (because to get down to 140m/s is just 1-2 webs, nothing difficult at all to accomplish), the blaphpoenix will be superior and op in compairson to all post-rebalancedreads.
Also the trackingformula is important to keep in mind, those 2k dps are made for "if you orbit the dread at >500m/s (with or without ab doesn't matter)" if you orbit it, you can't be hit by it, even if webbed (manual piloting to orbit even closer and max out transversal, ever heard of it?!)
However if you are @ ~ 25k from the dread your speed is lower than 20 m/s even an artynag without trackingmods can and will hit you, now if we keep in mind that most of the people crying here were nullseccers and not wh dwellers, I doubt that your dreads usually get orbited at 500, with manual piloted ships to max out transversal, usually you're all following an anchor who's keeping at least some distance to dreads.
This is just one example to show you, that all this salt is a waste, dreadblaps will still be viable in certain circumstances and as long as Application for Turretweapons and Missiles is not reworked, they'll not change.
Dreads vs Caps shouldn't change at all, lets be honest, i've never seen a speed-/transversaltanking Pantheoncarrier yet and i doubt they'll become a thing ....
How to fix ? Rolebonus to limit DPS on Sub-Caps!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#220 - 2016-01-04 23:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
RcTamiya wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Valeska Vasile wrote:
1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low, knowing that they will still takes ages to lock anything.

Seriously, Blap is fine. If you wait 30/60sec+ to lock something that fail to warp out or get range, then you should be able to nuke it asap.






To be frank that is enough reason for them to drop the extremely low scan res of dreads . Would be nice if you can lock a battleships before it blows up from old age :P



You all are mad because of that "just 2k dps" while nobody ever said that this number is final ....
I'll give you one example, lets take my favourit dread, the pheonix
As we all know, you only need 2 guidiance computers, 1 explusionradius rig and a rapier with 3 TPs + Informationlinks, as
result? A Battleship even with Skirmish links is getting hit for full damage as long as it is slower than 137.6 m/s, the phoenix does NOT need drugs for this.
Now it doesn't matter how much you fix turretdreads with low tracking etc, as long as Sig and Explusionradius are 100% responsible for dmg application of missiles (because to get down to 140m/s is just 1-2 webs, nothing difficult at all to accomplish), the blaphpoenix will be superior and op in compairson to all post-rebalancedreads.
Also the trackingformula is important to keep in mind, those 2k dps are made for "if you orbit the dread at >500m/s (with or without ab doesn't matter)" if you orbit it, you can't be hit by it, even if webbed (manual piloting to orbit even closer and max out transversal, ever heard of it?!)
However if you are @ ~ 25k from the dread your speed is lower than 20 m/s even an artynag without trackingmods can and will hit you, now if we keep in mind that most of the people crying here were nullseccers and not wh dwellers, I doubt that your dreads usually get orbited at 500, with manual piloted ships to max out transversal, usually you're all following an anchor who's keeping at least some distance to dreads.
This is just one example to show you, that all this salt is a waste, dreadblaps will still be viable in certain circumstances and as long as Application for Turretweapons and Missiles is not reworked, they'll not change.
Dreads vs Caps shouldn't change at all, lets be honest, i've never seen a speed-/transversaltanking Pantheoncarrier yet and i doubt they'll become a thing ....
How to fix ? Rolebonus to limit DPS on Sub-Caps!

Hmmm, It is application for capital turrets and launchers that is changing - So, your current blap phoenix will need to fit HAW launchers to be able to hit (some) subcaps AND they will do around 2,000 DPS in siege.
LOL, no a blap Phoenix doesn't need drugs to do it - It only needs two other pilots and specialized ships.

Dreads vs capitals will indeed change - A carrier will now be able to engage you from hundreds of Km away with a simple point and click. In fact smart carrier pilots will never be in range of a dread to be shot at. Dread can only do damage to another capital by being in siege, so is stuck in one place for the duration - A carrier has no siege or triage mode and with capital sized MWD's plus strategic warp points (bookmarks) can remain as much as possible out of range of a siege dread.

Good or bad - Someone at CCP is fixated on kiting, long range fighting (except that is for HAW weapons, which will give dreads a "superior range" of 50K [example of Devs being out of touch] from high angle weapons). The fact it is the least engaging style of fighting doesn't seem to matter. It is the direction, so we all need to get used to it.

NB; The "fix" for blap Phoenix's - Increase the explosion radius of all Citadel missiles - Your blap dread, no matter how many webs, will not hit a subcap. The new HAW launcher for Phoenix is likely to be similar to RHML using cruise size missiles but with far lower damage application potential than either RHML or RLML.

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.