Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Pirates don't gank them anymore, code are not pirates.



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.



YOU are the one who brought that up.



Now quote everything I said and stop trying to argue with a point I never made. Its the same end result.

And the only people ganking miners are code? I think not baby puppy.

Of course, because you've looked at doctrine ships and you've decide their primary statistic is defense.

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.

Which only matters if you consider defense and damage at a 1:1 ratio of importance to each other.

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.

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?

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...

2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units..

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!

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