These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Post-escalation Incursion Changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2012-05-11 19:51:35 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
^^ exactly. you cant' balance something out on what only happens 1% of the time to only 1% of the player base.


You can and CCP should. I forget who says it but there is a long time forum poster who said something to the effect of "anything you do to help noobs will only end up helping veteran players even more".

Same thing, CCP makes incursions so good people in un-shiny ships and totally disorganized PUG groups can make good isk, the "shiny communites" will use them to break EVE's economy to tiny little pieces with their farming of it lol. What's hard to understand about that?


So, you would rather make sure 20 people out of the entire Eve community are making normal money in incursions while hundreds/thousands make below normal income?
Crest Cutty
The Country Club Crest
#162 - 2012-05-11 19:59:08 UTC
No, I think the point is that simply adjusting around dps/tank numbers is not a viable way to balance these types of activities and that a "quick fix" will be abused by the same people running legion or mach/nightmare blitz fleets (the reason why these changes were implemented in the first place)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2012-05-11 21:27:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
^^ exactly. you cant' balance something out on what only happens 1% of the time to only 1% of the player base.


You can and CCP should. I forget who says it but there is a long time forum poster who said something to the effect of "anything you do to help noobs will only end up helping veteran players even more".

Same thing, CCP makes incursions so good people in un-shiny ships and totally disorganized PUG groups can make good isk, the "shiny communites" will use them to break EVE's economy to tiny little pieces with their farming of it lol. What's hard to understand about that?

So you think making them decent for the majority makes the minority able to break the entire economy? Granted they were no where near what they should have been at first, but saying only a select few should be able to participate makes it effectively not worth having and also has the side effect of making it not worth doing in more risky areas of space as some nullsec alliances have stated in a few different places including this thread.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2012-05-11 21:34:23 UTC
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.

This is actually a good argument for considering concord a non-factor. Danger comes from players and players are free to act aggressively in highsec, concord is only retaliation and can only retaliate against a ship you have already purposed to lose in the case of ganking. Jita and 4000 dead mining ships this month so far are a good testament to how effective they are as protection. Why this courtesy isn't being extended to incursion runners when it is known that many use expensive fits to increase performance but don't want to overtank meaning leaving them still somewhat vulnerable?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#165 - 2012-05-11 21:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Lyron and Tiberious, You have got to be kidding me.

#1. So you think there are just 20 people in shiney ships making super isk and everyone else is maknig very little. nonsense, let me introduce you to sUmmer and ISN, just to name a few. Hell, there are more than 20 shiney ship pilits in this thread lol.

#2. "Decent money" Tyberious? you've got one guy on this page talking about 60 mil an hour and shiney ship guys talking about 100 mil an hour still. How much is "decent?
To me, "decent money" should be "take high sec missions average pay out, add 10% and boom, that should be what high sec incursions pay, all things being equal.

The question is, how does CCP make non-farmable content. Truthfully, with incurions, they can't, because of the shiney ships bought with the previously broken former incursions (ironic, I know).
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2012-05-11 21:38:43 UTC
I was joking a bit but it has to only be a small number. I still don't think people are getting 100M an hour, every single hour they are running incursions though
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2012-05-11 21:47:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lyron and Tiberious, You have got to be kidding me.

#1. So you think there are just 20 people in shiney ships making super isk and everyone else is maknig very little. nonsense, let me introduce you to sUmmer and ISN, just to name a few. Hell, there are more than 20 shiney ship pilits in this thread lol.

#2. "Decent money" Tyberious? you've got one guy on this page talking about 60 mil an hour and shiney ship guys talking about 100 mil an hour still. How much is "decent?
To me, "decent money" should be "take high sec missions average pay out, add 10% and boom, that should be what high sec incursions pay, all things being equal.

The question is, how does CCP make non-farmable content. Truthfully, with incurions, they can't, because of the shiney ships bought with the previously broken former incursions (ironic, I know).

And there are alot of non-shiny pilots in the game. If you fly in a community that only allows faction and deadspace fit pirate battleships that is all you will see. I don't run in shiny fleets. I see tier 2 BC's occasionally in fleets, tech 1 BS's quite often and run with people who are willing to have them with us. You idea of balance is basically saying none of us deserve being there.

And to be honest despite being a mission runner I have no clue what an efficient runner makes. I hear people say that through pirate BS's, shiny fits, cherry picking, multiple agents, blitzing and efficient LP use say they exceed 100mill/hour running normal highsec missions. So if we are talking high end balance vs other high ends, we're looking at a completely different set of numbers. And it's not just limited to highsec. I've seen a number of pirate BS runners doing anoms in null, not the norm for the most part, but with good intel channels or even simply just watching local you are as effectively safe as you are in highsec.
Capitano Rivel
Doomheim
#168 - 2012-05-11 21:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Capitano Rivel
An idea I don't think has been brought up yet is turn incursions into some sort of a "daily" or "weekly" mission set up.

-Buff incursion payouts so they are an extremely fast way to make ISK.
-Limit the number of sites you can run.

To go into some detail of how this might work:
-Each week you could pick up say *20* incursion tokens from some sort of mechanic.
-When you hit a gate, 1 token is removed from your inventory (the same way DED keys work), no matter what site your entering.
?Why no matter what site your entering?
Larger sites give more payout and therefore would have potential more isk, but less isk/hr. A pilot could judge how often they would be running incursions and do sites based on that. (A pilot that plays only once or twice a week would go to vanguards.)


Tokens would be non-tradable of course since different sites would assign the tokens/keys different values.

At first it may seem a bit complicated but most of the mechanics that would be used are already in game, also the threat of losing a token if you D/C or warp out would help stabilize the community slightly.
Lemme know what you guys think :3
Col Ostomy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#169 - 2012-05-11 21:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Col Ostomy
Short Term Fix -

Revert payouts and spawns back to pre-nerf. Reduce Incursion High Secs to one spawn, increase LowSec spawns to three. Push shiny fleets to downgrade and run in low sec as high sec will be over populated. Spawn rate of sites in high sec will cap the isk faucet. No need to mess with changing concord mechanics in high sec. Those willing to take a greater risk in low sec will get a great reward.

Edit: This could cause issues of shiny fleets just jumping into someone else's site and out dpsing the payout. No suggestions on how to fix that.
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2012-05-11 22:05:00 UTC
Capitano Rivel wrote:
An idea I don't think has been brought up yet is turn incursions into some sort of a "daily" or "weekly" mission set up.

-Buff incursion payouts so they are an extremely fast way to make ISK.
-Limit the number of sites you can run.

To go into some detail of how this might work:
-Each week you could pick up say *20* incursion tokens from some sort of mechanic.
-When you hit a gate, 1 token is removed from your inventory (the same way DED keys work), no matter what site your entering.
?Why no matter what site your entering?
Larger sites give more payout and therefore would have potential more isk, but less isk/hr. A pilot could judge how often they would be running incursions and do sites based on that. (A pilot that plays only once or twice a week would go to vanguards.)


Tokens would be non-tradable of course since different sites would assign the tokens/keys different values.

At first it may seem a bit complicated but most of the mechanics that would be used are already in game, also the threat of losing a token if you D/C or warp out would help stabilize the community slightly.
Lemme know what you guys think :3



That will simply not work, People run incursions as a Career or to farm them, Now limiting them to 20 sites per week is the worst idea i have come across in this thread, Not only that this is not a "Short Term" Fix that Affinity wish's for, I for one would not run incursions if this came into the game.

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
#171 - 2012-05-11 22:05:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodes Reynolds
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.

This is actually a good argument for considering concord a non-factor. Danger comes from players and players are free to act aggressively in highsec, concord is only retaliation and can only retaliate against a ship you have already purposed to lose in the case of ganking. Jita and 4000 dead mining ships this month so far are a good testament to how effective they are as protection. Why this courtesy isn't being extended to incursion runners when it is known that many use expensive fits to increase performance but don't want to overtank meaning leaving them still somewhat vulnerable?


That's why I said virtually no risk. I will fully admit that there are also problems with the Concorde mechanic when it comes to protecting players, but that discussion for another thread entirely. Citing another mechanic breaking activity to justify your mechanic breaking activity is not a defense.


ninja edit:

It would probably cost us as much or more( I would have to run the numbers ) to suicide Gank one of your shiny ships successfully in a incursion site and all loot would be forfeit due to the incursion rats
Capitano Rivel
Doomheim
#172 - 2012-05-11 22:14:21 UTC
Herr Ronin wrote:
Capitano Rivel wrote:
An idea I don't think has been brought up yet is turn incursions into some sort of a "daily" or "weekly" mission set up.

-Buff incursion payouts so they are an extremely fast way to make ISK.
-Limit the number of sites you can run.

To go into some detail of how this might work:
-Each week you could pick up say *20* incursion tokens from some sort of mechanic.
-When you hit a gate, 1 token is removed from your inventory (the same way DED keys work), no matter what site your entering.
?Why no matter what site your entering?
Larger sites give more payout and therefore would have potential more isk, but less isk/hr. A pilot could judge how often they would be running incursions and do sites based on that. (A pilot that plays only once or twice a week would go to vanguards.)


Tokens would be non-tradable of course since different sites would assign the tokens/keys different values.

At first it may seem a bit complicated but most of the mechanics that would be used are already in game, also the threat of losing a token if you D/C or warp out would help stabilize the community slightly.
Lemme know what you guys think :3



That will simply not work, People run incursions as a Career or to farm them, Now limiting them to 20 sites per week is the worst idea i have come across in this thread, Not only that this is not a "Short Term" Fix that Affinity wish's for, I for one would not run incursions if this came into the game.



Pretty sure you'd get by with less then 3 tokens Ronin
But the exact number of tokens wasn't the point.

Perhaps it could be solved by allowing you to keep your tokens if certain mechanics took place. Mechanics that only 'shiny' fleets (people who invest in incursions) would be able to accomplish.
But then your getting away from short-term fix of limited number of sites and into deeper things.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#173 - 2012-05-11 22:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
CCP Affinity, after reading this thread, there is nothing that you can do"short-term" to fix this incursion problem the reason being "Concorde protection" allows people to to fly officer fit faction battleships

- An Incursion fleet flying faction battleships fit with officer mods. Allows that fleet to effectively break any balancing done using payouts/Time it takes to run the site.

The shiny fleets are currently flying with factions fit ships , if you Nerf to pay out/Site time, they'll just upgrade to officer. (because there is virtually no risk of losing it because of "Concorde protection" )

- if you Nerf the payouts and/or time it takes to do the site, enough where Faction battleships Fit with officer mods can't break it, Then the barrier for entry has been raised so high that you're going to lose 98% of your community.

- Unless you are willing to limit what people can fit on their ships when running the sites ( Which you won't do because that would break the concept of Eve)

CCP Affinity, Do you see a way around this problem without removing Concorde? ( anybody.. )

On a side note.....

...

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.
As hinted already, your arguement is nonsense and self-defeating. IF Concord keeps faction fitted ships safe and they make plenty of isk prior to another change, and people would safely swap up to officer fits in order to sustain some mythical 'sufficient' isk rate, why would they not already be flying officer fitted ships all the time and just make more isk? Because as you say, there is still a very strong risk-reward balance in the Concord mechanism, they protect no one, only offer consequences. Officer fits are rare and more importantly, hugely vulnerable. Losing a week or month's heavy time investment in earning in seconds is plenty of balance to the tiny % bonuses. You apparently really don't want to even gank hundreds if not thousands of predictably placed & tanked faction fitted ships. You would do better to hurt their income by constantly running the Moms again or just directly contesting sites - a mechanism which already counters the concept of min-maxing.

We were running legions with 3 TCs and a web, and being beated in contests by ones with sensor boosters instead of a TC, not because they are more able to apply dps, but because they got volleys in faster and denied us the chance to score damage on rats for our fleet, to win site payouts. The contest mechanism already means that optimal uncontested fits are not optimal to fly when there are contests to win, because losing contests means ammo, paste and time costs with no reward. Officer fits are no exception to this, CCP have already created the better limiting factor in allowing best direct dps-applying fleets to be out-flown.

Also, a nullsec ratting system is far safer than highsec. You know immediately once a hostile enters local, if not far beforehand. In highsec, an officer/faction/whatever fitted ship must expect gank fits can fly right besides them at station & gates, and lock them & shipscan them with no counter other than to not be in space and thus not making money.
Also nullsec anoms require someone ship/combat scan you, while highsec sites are overview beacons and immediately warpable upon entering system, and with bottleneck activation gates.

Capitano, I believe I already suggested an improved limit, in that Concord perhaps directly cap the isk and LP they will pay per day to a player. This would ensure there is a high limit to strive for, but also that all desiring fleet members & players of all skill levels have more of a chance of flying & earning. A daily limit accounts for timezones and RL social rhythms as well as handling longer term actions such as JCing/flying to & from PVP action, or taking time away from this game for some days per week without forcing it upon people.
Loss of tokens due to disconnects and RL issues should not be a real game balance consideration, that is more false difficulty, and in almost every other aspect of PvE is petitionable to be reversed.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2012-05-11 22:15:41 UTC
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.

This is actually a good argument for considering concord a non-factor. Danger comes from players and players are free to act aggressively in highsec, concord is only retaliation and can only retaliate against a ship you have already purposed to lose in the case of ganking. Jita and 4000 dead mining ships this month so far are a good testament to how effective they are as protection. Why this courtesy isn't being extended to incursion runners when it is known that many use expensive fits to increase performance but don't want to overtank meaning leaving them still somewhat vulnerable?


That's why I said virtually no risk. I will fully admit that there are also problems with the Concorde mechanic when it comes to protecting players, but that discussion for another thread entirely. Citing another mechanic breaking activity to justify your mechanic breaking activity is not a defense.

To be genuine here, I wasn't aware ganking was supposed to be considered broken, nor in all truth did I think concord was for purpose of protection but rather a force of consequence. I generally view ganking as working as intended and a mechanism that is supposed to theoretically help serve as a counter to the current highsec min/maxing going on. I've always viewed officer fits and complacency vs disposable ships and players who aren't concerned about sec status as both being fully supported and competing features.
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-05-11 22:30:10 UTC
Capitano Rivel wrote:
Herr Ronin wrote:
Capitano Rivel wrote:
An idea I don't think has been brought up yet is turn incursions into some sort of a "daily" or "weekly" mission set up.

-Buff incursion payouts so they are an extremely fast way to make ISK.
-Limit the number of sites you can run.

To go into some detail of how this might work:
-Each week you could pick up say *20* incursion tokens from some sort of mechanic.
-When you hit a gate, 1 token is removed from your inventory (the same way DED keys work), no matter what site your entering.
?Why no matter what site your entering?
Larger sites give more payout and therefore would have potential more isk, but less isk/hr. A pilot could judge how often they would be running incursions and do sites based on that. (A pilot that plays only once or twice a week would go to vanguards.)


Tokens would be non-tradable of course since different sites would assign the tokens/keys different values.

At first it may seem a bit complicated but most of the mechanics that would be used are already in game, also the threat of losing a token if you D/C or warp out would help stabilize the community slightly.
Lemme know what you guys think :3



That will simply not work, People run incursions as a Career or to farm them, Now limiting them to 20 sites per week is the worst idea i have come across in this thread, Not only that this is not a "Short Term" Fix that Affinity wish's for, I for one would not run incursions if this came into the game.



Pretty sure you'd get by with less then 3 tokens Ronin
But the exact number of tokens wasn't the point.

Perhaps it could be solved by allowing you to keep your tokens if certain mechanics took place. Mechanics that only 'shiny' fleets (people who invest in incursions) would be able to accomplish.
But then your getting away from short-term fix of limited number of sites and into deeper things.


As i said, Stupid Idea, "Short Term Fix"


I'll Race You For A Amburhgear
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
#176 - 2012-05-11 22:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodes Reynolds
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.

This is actually a good argument for considering concord a non-factor. Danger comes from players and players are free to act aggressively in highsec, concord is only retaliation and can only retaliate against a ship you have already purposed to lose in the case of ganking. Jita and 4000 dead mining ships this month so far are a good testament to how effective they are as protection. Why this courtesy isn't being extended to incursion runners when it is known that many use expensive fits to increase performance but don't want to overtank meaning leaving them still somewhat vulnerable?


That's why I said virtually no risk. I will fully admit that there are also problems with the Concorde mechanic when it comes to protecting players, but that discussion for another thread entirely. Citing another mechanic breaking activity to justify your mechanic breaking activity is not a defense.

To be genuine here, I wasn't aware ganking was supposed to be considered broken, nor in all truth did I think concord was for purpose of protection but rather a force of consequence. I generally view ganking as working as intended and a mechanism that is supposed to theoretically help serve as a counter to the current highsec min/maxing going on. I've always viewed officer fits and complacency vs disposable ships and players who aren't concerned about sec status as both being fully supported and competing features.



Hi-sec Ganking is/was an unintended mechanic, discovered by players,to go around Concorde. CCP tolerates this because it great interesting gameplay, they consider it not game breaking because of the word Suicide. If the player figures out how to go around Concorde without forfeiting his ship it is considered an exploit. Hence my word virtually no risk, it would cost us as much or more to suicide Gank one of your shiny ships with any margin of success as it would for you to buy in the first place ( I've have to run the numbers but I'm pretty sure.)

Using shiny ships, to essentially go around CCP's Nerf. What is CCP taking from you to balance you going around their Nerf ?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2012-05-11 22:57:24 UTC
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:

RebelMC , you're assuming that Concorde would stop us if we really wanted to? If memory serves me I believe our community has done its own type of incursion, on a major market hub recently? Thank you for the suggestion I'll keep in mind.

This is actually a good argument for considering concord a non-factor. Danger comes from players and players are free to act aggressively in highsec, concord is only retaliation and can only retaliate against a ship you have already purposed to lose in the case of ganking. Jita and 4000 dead mining ships this month so far are a good testament to how effective they are as protection. Why this courtesy isn't being extended to incursion runners when it is known that many use expensive fits to increase performance but don't want to overtank meaning leaving them still somewhat vulnerable?


That's why I said virtually no risk. I will fully admit that there are also problems with the Concorde mechanic when it comes to protecting players, but that discussion for another thread entirely. Citing another mechanic breaking activity to justify your mechanic breaking activity is not a defense.

To be genuine here, I wasn't aware ganking was supposed to be considered broken, nor in all truth did I think concord was for purpose of protection but rather a force of consequence. I generally view ganking as working as intended and a mechanism that is supposed to theoretically help serve as a counter to the current highsec min/maxing going on. I've always viewed officer fits and complacency vs disposable ships and players who aren't concerned about sec status as both being fully supported and competing features.



Hi-sec Ganking is/was an unintended mechanic, discovered by players,to go around Concorde. CCP tolerates this because it great interesting gameplay, they consider it not game breaking because of the word Suicide. If the player figures out how to go around Concorde without forfeiting his ship it is considered an exploit. Hence my word virtually no risk, it would cost us as much or more to suicide Gank one of your shiny ships with any margin of success as it would for you to buy in the first place ( I've have to run the numbers but I'm pretty sure.)

Using shiny ships, to essentially go around CCP's Nerf is just as game breaking.

I only started the game in 2009 and have no pre-concord reference, but regardless of it being unintended gameplay or not, the devs have decided to support and build rules around it to the point of evolving it into a supported mechanic. The time of calling it a workaround is gone, and even if it wasn't its prevalence means it's something that should be taken into account.

Concord as a totally protective entity isn't evidenced in it's function either. Concord is designed to allow time for crimes to be committed with increasing response times as sec status approaches 0.5. This is not evidence of an unintended mechanic. This is not a workaround when the game has warnings and mechanics designed to address this specific situation.

As far as cost I can't argue as I don't use or price any of the mods we'd be looking at in a truly tempting target, but I'm sure someone could come up with the method and number to pull it off. People take on freighter EHP for the same amounts that some are putting into their incursions ships so it clearly can be done.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
The Initiative.
#178 - 2012-05-11 23:06:28 UTC  |  Edited by: xVx dreadnaught
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
But isn't that a deeper issue than incursions? That's Armor (sry, I meant armour :) ) vs shield tanking, and it's an age old problem, not something that is unique to incursions (and something that coupld be fixed by mid-slot damage mods, in the same way you have both low and mid slot tracking mods, but thats a whole 'nother discussion lol).

Trying to balance incursions against something that is a deep core issue in the game should not be a dev focus IMO. The armor tankers just need to train shield stuff to adapt.

If you buff incursions to the point where armor tankers are doing as well as shield fleets can, it' just a super buff to shield fleets......
You fail to understand balancing with current mechanics. Shield-tankers can fit TEs, but those modules don't compare with the effective tracking improvements of a 60-90% web, which is also effective for all shooting at the target (which helps other fleets in contests too). Thus, to balance you make sufficient rats come within web range, a range which isn't something that scales with hull size unlike guns.
There are reasons why I would love that it did, but it doesn't.

So to balance current shield vs armour, you let shield have highest theoretical DPS with more lowslot damage & TE modules, and let slower armour ships have a chance to use their mids by requiring tracking that only scripted TCs or webs can provide. Shields have to fly away & kite but can't permakite, armour have to fly towards and tackle & lose a bit of time getting into range. That's Eve done right, not only having shield as the option for best isk.

xVx dreadnaught wrote:

The Ditanian Fleet were the first to do Mom sites as well as HQ's and they fly exclusively Armor fleets.
It's not a question of whether they can do it, or do it safest first time, but equally efficiently once sites are min-maxed. For 3/4 races.

Never mind how bad railguns are (for all stats) as a racial issue, or that artillery has a far larger difference in alpha for their dps than another other ranged weapons system. You could do something like half their alpha and double their RoF and they'd still be the slowest, hardest hitting weapons for a given dps value. And once something's alpha'd you don't care about DPS so much. Machs volleying things could take out rats at their guns cycle rate, rather than several volleys of other ranged weapons with 10% higher theoretical dps.



What makes Armor ships any less DPS than Shield?

I hear people go on about the Machariel being an Epic shield ship. But don't most Mach pilots know that they can get the exact same DPS as the standard Shield Mach... With Faster tracking, higher tank, quicker lock rate and fit a web with ease if they armor fit? You can get a solid 4 slot tank, leaving you 3 Gyro's (which I believe the standard machs have) Have 5 mid, 1 SeBo, 2 Tracking computers (scritps for range or speed) and 2 x webs/Target painters.

The same goes for Vindi's except the web(s) on the Vindi's are even more valuble since they are 90% Meaning everyone hits the targets better.
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos
The Whale Hunters Association
#179 - 2012-05-11 23:07:34 UTC
yes and those freighters need to carry over 4b worth of stuf at current prices to break even on a sucide fleet.

a 100k ehp ship needs about 8 sucide ships so it needs to have mods worth 1b drop or so to break even, so unless your a super pimped t3 or some other low ehp target the chance of you getting ganked is quite slim
xVx dreadnaught
modro
The Initiative.
#180 - 2012-05-11 23:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: xVx dreadnaught
If hi-sec is sooo safe, then why is there so much profit in activities like Hulkageddon? Where the sole reason and objective is, to kill people in hi-sec in forced PVP that they are not expecting nor usually able to amount a reasonable defence against

(I do say usually because I do know some people have found ways to protect themselves. But on the most part it is attacking unwitting miners)

also, you do not have to kill a ship with hundreds of thousands of HP to attack incursion runners. You just need to stop the logi's from doing their job, this could be ECM, Neut's or ganking them (hard to do since they are small sig and usually orbiting with an AB)

But even the strongest of fleets will not last a few seconds in the second wave of an OTA without logistics.