Ships & Modules

I don't mind that thread so much. I'm not quite sure what you want me to comment on.

I still maintain that any of those proposed changes will impact the large-scale Drake and Tengu much less than either side envision (regardless if people tear up or celebrate). I fear you'll be let down of you expect a sweet smell of change.

We can both hope it brings about change though .

I doubt it though, and the conclusion is quite simply that CCP (similar to you) focus on changing things that are not apart of any problem, while completely misinterpreting what the problem actually is and how to deal with it effectively.

Isn't that what i've said all along?

Fozzie's devblog come as no surprise to me. I have expected it ever since Ytterbium's badposts and the CSM discussions. It doesn't make it any less stupid though .


My reservations with that thread is the same as here:

1. The changes won't impact the real problem (scaling, cost-effect, popularity, Drakes).
2. The changes will cause problems where there is balance (small-medium, performance, other ships).
3. Where accuracy components are important, transversal is the key modifier (people don't know / forget that).

Not that 20-man HAC gangs are popular, but consider what the changes will do there, think about how a Cerb will hit the same ranges with the same damage as Zealots, on two range bonuses compared to one, without the ability to dictate transversals and the unlikely ability to switch from 290 Aurora to 508 Gleam. The new Fury missiles better be awesome (but likely they'll be 20/20 compromises). Large scale Drakes don't really bother with actual ship balance that much .

Likewise, you never flew the Tengu over the Drake for that awesome extra damage or reach, you flew it because it enabled you to have 400k relative hitpoints against HML*. While the 100mn variant enable you to mitigate even further without completely sodding over your ability to dictate transversal (which is the main reason 100mn on Turret ships never grew popular, as they need distance to build momentum - and ships like 100mn Lokis mainly saw use through LR webs).

*) BS-turrets (or any oversized turrets) definately apply here too, they're not as easily calced though so HML will have to serve the example, but the point remain that the ships base around a tank-mitigation relative (to other popular projection-buffer concepts) that give them very large tanks for the ISK you invest. Similar to faction BS and Carriers profiling now.

Yes only way TD works in game is if Missiles get complete overhaul....I mean top to bottom how missiles work.

The Radius was always ******** to me. Who cares if a frig gets hit, by a 90m explosion or hit by a 400m explosion its still getting hit completely. Velocity I get because the ship could lessen the DMG by out running the explosion.

I think missiles need to play more of a Ewar role as well, Missiles need to be arranged IMO like bombs, some would be lock breaking missiles while others did DMG based on type etc, Ewar ships would get onuses to Ewar missiles while "Ships of the line" like BC`s and up would get certain DMG type bonus`s [like kinetic now]

But come on they are killing the only viable Missile system there is because PVE`ers who are part time fighters have trained for these ships that do well [but not the best by far] in both areas.

Lets face it the Drake is like a Spear was in the dark ages, it took way less skill than a Sword or Axe to master in battle let alone a longbow but it was effective, just not as effective as the others.

Drakes are 8/10 PVE boats and 9/10 PVP ships, they are crushed by badhacs as we have seen time and again outnumbered.

Also if they do do this HML nerf which is stupid tey better bring in line HAMS, they have a 17ishk realistic range [including launch speed waste etc] and do a realistic 500 DPS on a Drake and only vs another drake or a ship with 325ish sig radius and up and slow, meaning cruisers they are doing less DMG than HML`s.

What they should have done is put HML`s Tracking to be far worse as its the only long range variant in game that tracks better than the short.

But compare a simiiar fit to a Cane and you get 570+ DPS plus a bigger drone bay and 1.5 the speed with room enough for a nuet and they really can leave anythime they want, how is a Ham drake supposed to truly tackle and kill anything? Not with Cynabals Vagas and winmattarr in general, you can make a Mach/Pest as nimble as a Drake but with 150-350 more DPS and fine tracking.

I really would lik to see missiles have falloff, but since there DMG would be based on tracking heavily, make it so a HML for instance has a"Upto" 30km range+ 40km fall off and each 10m after the tracking would fall by 25% until its max range [lowest it could get at anyrange would be 5%] it would have to hit at 40km to do 75% DMG etc.

They really need to think outside the box and dont just nerf hammer it. IMO its so fleet fights can go smoother, but even though I rarely fly them I always loved idea of missiles and in RL its hard to imagine lasers and arty without missiles lol.

Ncdot uses beam zealots in very specific fleets. You don't really see them being used elsewhere as far as I know. Definitely not in gangs of 25 or less.

I object to making tracking disruptor affect missiles:


I believe a different module should be created to "disrupt" missiles.


Making track disruptor a module that affect both turrets and missiles will make it a God Module that everyone fits in their mids.

Make people have to choose between fitting a module that affects turrets OR affects missiles, not both.

No, but at that scale there are plenty of other options and the Drake itself is far less dominant (it volleys no buffers).

The "25 or less" scale is hardly where a Drake shine.

Once again, people should pull their heads out from inbetween their cheeks are realize that dealing with the Drake is as simple as dealing with insurance and other cost-effect modifiers.

It's odd slaughtering real balance over some pipe-dream that they want to keep insurance as they belive it keeps people in ships to shoot each other, keep newer players in action and have ships redesigned to be more similar (from a fleet perspective) within class while they introduce new classes for diversity - when that logic can be turned both ways - and from my perspective it does more to keep the game out of action: The price to keep new people in large fleets is paid by other people in smaller gangs (that create content by leading rather than following), and the price we pay for new ships is streamlining of existing classes (where each ship essentially do the same, yet some will do it better and be used - see Nemesis). It may seem odd to some of you, as what they do is appearantly fixing existing ships, but in the manner they do it they are not effectively fixing existing balance: they are simplifying it and streamlining it to allow more new ships...

... yet not new things to do with them.

The funny thing is that while they even out what you can achieve with simplified bottom line ships they just intensify the differences in scaling and cost-effect that they turn a blind eye to. Thanks to complex layering 10 Tengus can still have a good fight with 50 Tengus (good fight per the Kil2-Kovorix definition of uncertain outcome). 10 Talos will be killed by 50 Talos with certainty (that's why poor defensive layering is non-interactive, they will not attempt the fight; that is also why i hate the new Tier 3 BC and the direction from which they came as much as Drakes). The same will apply to any new designs built around the same concept.

You can even look at trends. The cost-effect have made more and more smaller groups revert to cost-effective and simple layer concepts themselves, and then lose interest. They fly those Drakes (podla/darkside Drakes) and Talos (nano-blaster Talos) themselves but they also can't interact between scales which essentially mean that we have a big gap between solo and large. That gap usually manifiest itself in more risk-adversity where people get picky with fights and limit both their target pools and regionality. The gap to some degree (combined with the emptiness of deep space, due to structure-based ISK-making and insurance-based SRP) have allowed really small groups to surf under the radar to begin to get around a bit. That's still artificial though (at the whim of whoever take the bait) and budding more thanks to starvation of it's natural predators (the many competent smaller groups that either downgrade to BC, hop into WH or in other ways restrict their regionality and interact only with peers - or join PL in droves) than any real encouragement in the game. It's roaming for the sake of roaming, because people understand the value of creating content. It's a house of cards though. If enough people solo they will incentivize small-gangs by opening up a target pool, but they will immidiately starve each other again when that happens since the core incentive is not there. The BSB-revival is an admirable movement (i love it! and it has served it's purpose of "anyone can PvP"), but without foundation in the game it's whimsical.

If small-gang revive, solo-players will face the same existential question - as they will have natural predators, but lack natural targets. The game is like an eco-system.

If you listen to BSB you will also have heard Kil2 mention that. Why he tend to shy away from NPC-null regions have to do with competent small-gang groups. Going into such an area, with eg., a blaster Talos, he will face well-layered concepts. It doesn't have to be a massive numerical disparity: let's say 1 vs. 5. Those 5 may be 2 HAC, 2 Recon, 1 Logi though at which point they will have a good layering of effects that a simplistic design like a Talos simply can't deal with. The certainty is extremely high. The Talos deal with that even worse than a Drake for example, since it's more onedimensional (fewer layers to peel off with a diversity of effects, rather than simple stacking).

Hm, i actually promised i'd make this post in another thread: as a follow-up to this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1909520#post1909520. The discussions are related though, so it ended up here instead.

Yes, and what exactly is a PODLA Drake?

PODLA Drakes came about when people realized any cost in a HAC could be met with an investment in safer layers to create a more cost-effective mimic of a popular tactic (especially in Lowsec).

In short, a "PODLA Drake" was the realisation that Snakes and Boosters turn a nano-Drake into an SHAC.

So it could run SHAC tactics, or mobile sniping tactics if you may (and beat SHACs), in the post-nano Apocrypha era.

Likewise a "Darkside Drake" is the realistion that what made post-nano nano functional was not the HACs (SR Vagabonds, LR Zealots) but rather the layering of support that the HACs employed (Boosters, Scimis, Rapiers, Curses - to create mid range killzones, over which they kited). So it's essentially just an extended concept of the "PODLA Drake".

Both of those concepts are absolutely murdered by a larger group of similar ships though, and the reason they came about was a cost-effect, nothing else (a 2b 10-man gang could turn into a 1b 10-man gang to fight larger mixed gangs).

This is also why larger groups picked up on it in 2009 and Drakes began to profile heavily. Since it enabled you to outsource complex and costly roles to more experienced members of a gang, to deal with basic layering and then put everyone else in cost-effective, low-complex ships like the Drake.

Drake-blobs are essentially Podla/Darkside Drakes. It rest on the legacy of those concepts.

The good groups then shifted over onto more durable high-complex lynchpin-killer concepts (like AHACs).

Once again, the reason is cost-effect. Not good groups employing good tactics, and certainly not an overpowered ship.

Darkside Drakes have their equivalent in many other similar concepts like "BALEX Canes" (iconic in the same era by other prominent small-medium roamers Balkan Express).

TL on the other hand were very early onto Tier 3 BC, and serve an excellent example of old roaming groups exploiting the "honeymoon" of those BC (dec 2011 - feb 2012), later adapting or succumbing to low-layer cost-effect and losing interest. That as a result of not having the layers to deal with decent medium-large groups employing the same tactic, groups like your own alliance. The problem isn't being successful, the problem is that they lack target pools.

Thank you for illustrating my points for me .

Let me try again:

PODLA Drakes = 2/2 nano bcs Drakes with Snake implants and Skirmish boosters. Profiled in the post-nano era of 2008 as old nano gangs (Vagas, NHAC) turned into nano sniper gangs (Zealots, SHAC), and BC began using cheaper medium rigs. The boosters, nano and snakes enabled them to go as fast as the HACs (2km+) while range rigs would enable them to HML to 100km. As far as i can remember PODLA mostly operated in lowsec at the time, which made sense due to the preservation of implants (cost-effect) and CS (Lokis were rare), but it was used to roam null too.

Darkside Drakes = PODLA Drakes (sans implants) with additional Siege boosters, Logis and Recons. They profiled in 2009 by looking at NHAC and SHAC, and understanding that the Logis and Recons were the reason those gangs could fight the BC (Drake) gangs of their era, who usually did not have Logis and Recons applied in any organised way. Cost-effect was a driving force as it enabled them to replace the weakest link (the HAC themselves) with cheaper alternatives (Drakes).

Drake Blobs = a scaling up of Darkside Drakes, building on the ability not only to replace expensive ships with cheaper options but also high-SP ships with low-SP options and more complicated ships with more simplistic options (eg., Turrets for Missiles), as you outsource lynchpin roles to more experienced members of your large fleet.

AHACs = a 2009 armor-plated adaption of HAC using the higher EHP compared to shield options in combination with the resist profile and impulse use of propulsion mods to up their staying power to kill the lynchpins (Logis, Recons) of less organised BC and BS gangs. Original AHACs (look at Ishtars or Deimos) did not use AB or DP, they had only MWD and bursted them to sigtank. AB and DP came later as the accuracy mechanics were changed in 2010 (with SoT, now Darkside, Ishtars and things like Agony Tweed). The use of Zealots is a 2010 fleet-adaption of the original medium-gang AHAC due to drone-mechanics and large scale environment.


Let's look at how they relate to present-era standards:
(it's irrelevant here, but it may help someone learn).

Hellcats = a 2010 BS-adaption resting on understanding the tracking mechanics to beat both Drake Blobs and AHACs. It's very pertinent in this topic. Their lower cost was also a driving factor in comparison to more expensive Zealots or Legions. BS with proper use of webs and trasversal also dealt well with AHACs. TC were more fleet-reach specific.

Alphamaels = a 2010 BS-adaption to volley through the larger sig and higher buffer of Hellcats and Drakes at range, rooted in the preference of Muninns and Machariels (MacHacs) for high volley damage in the dying days of the SHAC.

Thundercats = a 2011 Tech III adaptation (born out of 100mn Tengu) that combine the sig-tank of AHAC with reach to deal with Drakes and Maels.

Pantheon = a 2010 (ish) adaption of using Archons like Guardians with cap-transfers and buffer-tanks to deal with cap-war (lynchpin in Triage-battles), higher volley damage of alpha fleets and enable offensive roles similar to RRBS (yet not with Sentries). Later evolution include refitting options between Triage and buffer.

Blap Dreads = a 2010 (ish) realisation of cost-effect in the Super Hotdrop era to create super traps coupled with the ability to raise tracking similar to Hellcats through siege mode, tracking mods and high order use of webs and painters (Vindis, 100mn Lokis etc.). Combined with refitting to switch between high-damage SR and good reach LR turrets. Resting on similar use with Titans and profiling heavily after the Dread buff in dec 2011.

Slowcats = a 2012 fleet adaption of Ishtars and RRBS or Pantheon, enabling high-tracking Sentry-use and trigger assignment on high buffers. More apt at dealing with the longer range of Tengus, Maels and Tier 3 BC, and environment of fleetcoms. Slowcats are often used in synch with Blap Dreads and Faction BS / Tech III support.

Foxcats = a 2012 fleet-level continuation of Hellcats with higher buffers (akin to Tech III and Carriers) and better tracking-relatives through the optimal bonus, used in combination with Slowcats similar to the medium concepts they root in.


Back to the topic:

I don't see Brick as especially "strange". You feel like a typical medium-large scale operator that favour defensive roaming (often based around various BC) and sometime dabble into some small-time sov dealings. That place you quite firmly in the same bracket as other groups of your size: Evoke, BL, S2N, Gypsy, Init etc. Along with an array of junior sov-partners. I cast no aspirations on who is the better or worse, i'm merely saying that you can easily generalize and lump you up with other alliances of your size, same as any group really (PODLA and TL who you used as example are not very similar either, but it was still good examples and i understood what you meant for them to illustrate).

The point that you missed was that such use of gangs based on Tier 2 or Tier 3 BC have a very low layering (see the evolution of Drake concepts above), with outsourced lynchpins that make it very difficult for small to interact with medium, on the same principle that solo have trouble interacting with small. The whole comment about 10 vs. 50 when you compare the BC with Tech III for example. If groups like PODLA and TL used high-layer Tech III and you did the same, you would be able to interact much better with each other despite the scale-difference, than you do now with BC.

They spend more time avoiding you than fighting you now, don't they? To me, that's a shame.

To me, that also means more than the NC falling apart. Even though i definately agree with you that the NC falling apart made northern space more empty: that's player culture, we can't design on that.

Apart from that, i agree with you 100% about the changes affecting Drakes in small gangs poorly .

To be honest small gang roamers have avoided BWF for a long time now and I don't really blame them for it.

Later on (2010 and 2011) PODLA mostly operated in nullsec without snakes or range rigs. I don't know if you've flown with really small gangs like that? It's an incredibly casual environment for the most part. Anyway, those tiny organisations have always picked out spots where they can get lots of kills, usually in an entry system to null. They'll check out if there's an engageable gatecamp and will go for it if there is. Or if there's nothing they'll jump in, maybe hassle the locals and see what pops out of the station/jumpbridge.

I think the NC and the invasion of providence was a special case where people were so bad that gangs of 10 could take on 50.

As far as brick goes we went for geminate in January on the idea that we'd grief all those alliances to death by being as annoying as possible. It worked. We actually have nowhere near the actual fleet capabilities of nulli, BL or Gypsy and we have been literally broke for four years (as in people were paying for sbu's out of their own wallets).

Yeah that was the thing. Before tier 3's, drakes had amazing damage projection, especially compared to the autocane which was pretty much a plague back then. The webs took care of its weakness, which was frigates and the links put the point range really far out. In other words it was a ship that filled pretty much every role by itself.

Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned...