Ships & Modules

I see from trhe posts here ,that alot of players are having trouble ,with just what the BATTLECRUISIER concept is .In RL navies the concept was to deliver battleship damge potential ,on a fast hull / platform .Thus allowing you to do serious damge to hostile ships before the big dreadnoughts arrived.Remember at this time a dreadnought was a heavily armed and armoured battleship,and not as class of its own as we have in game.In this regard the T3 BCs are exactly what was envisaged by naval designers Fast hard hitting ships able to delivier serious damage against hostile ships of any class.The fault really is with the T1 and T2 battlecruisiers in game ,as they failed in the overwhelming number one concept of battlecruisier therory .That is giving battleship damage potential on a fast hull/platform.Really if CCP wants to be true to the BATTLECRUISIER concept all BCs shuold beable to fit BS weapons .So the T1 Brutix gets say 4 BS weapons and armour resitiance bonuses ect so it can brawl close range while the T2 Myri gets 6,and perhaps bonuses for range and falloff ect so it can snipe ,While the T3 Talos stays basically the same 8 BS weapons and able toduck in close or stay at range so speed bonuses

Indeed. It doesn't have as much to do with differences in cost as it does with "bottom" of cost: when someting is no longer worth killing.
If we go back to the very core of the game...

• You attack somone's space because you want to destroy (sink) or take their resources for yourself (reward).
• You attack somone's ship because you want to destroy it's value (sink) or scavenge loot (reward) for yourself.
• The "sucking chest-wound" of EVE is that both those remarks are currently broken: little risk and reward in either.

It's pertinent to this topic, because the problem with the Talos is that it's one of the ships with malbalanced risk-reward.

Why? Because it was based on Tier 2 BC (Drakes) which already had malbalanced risk-reward: bottomed cost.

That "temporary" malbalance have persisted for 5 years, and is not currently dealt with.

In the relation between available PvE (passive income, or new top-tier faucets at accessible locations, from things like FW missions to highsec Incursion) and those PvP outlets, we have shifted the primary resource in EVE online from ISK to Players. Since you can completely overcome ISK (essentially free ships) the value of Players (numerical advantage) is running rampant.

We can have a philosophical discussion about numbers going from a factor to the factor, but what's interesting is player behaviour: The situation we have is what drive people either into coalitions or into seclusionist gameplay. Next, both those sides polarize. If this continues we will just have more and more "difference of culture" as some would argue is the root of the problem. That isn't the root, this is - further differences in culture is the result, alienation.

That is bad because a sandbox is built around interaction.

The problem isn't that *I* can't fight the *blob*, the problem is that trends show that *we* choose not to = Less fights.

I doesn't matter if i still do it, when less and less people do around me, and remove themselves from my target pool .

That goes for players, same as specific ships: dwindling target pools, shifts in the relation between predator and prey. Less people roaming = less targets in a variety of regions (they bring content with them), similarily the nerf to the Falcon killed the Cerb because it's target pool dwindled.

We can be risk-adverse when it comes to ISK, but we can also be risk-adverse when it comes to numbers (choosing not to fight another gang because they have more players). ISK inferiority at least comes with a tangible reward. If ISK sinks are out of play it is also increasingly difficult for someone poor to catch up to someone rich, so we end up conservative in both numbers and ISK.

Logically, none of the ongoing changes act to change that direction: they don't raise risk-reward, they do the opposite (they lower risk-reweard). I belive the problem is that some developers, same as some players, don't understand that the game is based on ISK and seek to re-balance it based on misguided perspectives on performance and popularity.

There shouldn't be any free ships in EVE Online and any associated cost (sinks) should be in parity to PvE income (faucets). There are no exact figures to that, other than the fact that loss should hurt a player. Ships that hold relevance should also hold a relevant associated cost. Not wanting to be hurt is pure egoism and goes against the very foundation this game is built around, you take your losses and rebuild. That, need to consider ISK as a commodity same as players: otherwise we just devalue ISK further in a favour of numbers, which obviously (unless you're blind or sipping kool-aid) causes the community to fracture.

If you are content with "Amamake", "Syndicate" or "Factional Warfare" - you are also content with only a sliver of the game. There is so much more potential. Splitting them apart and polarizing them leads to less total potential.

I just want to register a complaint here: if you are content with sov warfare and all the bullshit that enamors you, you are also content with only a sliver of the game. There is so much more potential. Blah blah blah blah. Just because "casual PVP" is not a play style that you endorse or approve of does not mean that it's any less viable, valuable, or necessary.

You can really see it in your analysis of why people PVP too:


Is it really so bad that you attack someone's space or ship because you can? Is it really so bad that you attack someone's space because you want to? Is it really so bad that you attack someone's space because you want to pick a fight? Why are "monetary" reasons the only reasons that matter?

I feel like this is a critical failing in your analysis of what drives Eve - and good game design in general.

-Liang

The 100mn ship has 5x less sig radius than the 10mn ship but has roughly equivalent speeds. Agility can be a problem in the first few seconds of a fight but it's not really that big of a deal. All the usual rules about transversal apply - so if you're flying directly towards or away from someone then you're still gonna eat some damage... but not as much as you'd think.

I've had good luck escaping multiple (read: dozens of) CS/BC/HAC fleets. BS and Tier 3 fleets are absolutely trivial. Frigs can be problematic and it's pretty easy to be perma-tackled, but generally speaking they're gonna have a lot of trouble killing you too. That's why I can see the argument that the 100mn Talos actually impinges upon the role of the Vagabond - but instead we seem to be focused on how slapping a MWD on any given DPS ship obsoletes the Vagabond instead.

-Liang

This is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of the way tracking works in Eve. Tracking and sig radius/resolution is a multiplier in a formula, not a boolean value.

-Liang

No. Go take some math courses.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'll be waiting for your apology once you figure out just how wrong you were. A "Heretics are better than Tuskers" will do.

See, that's the thing about it. I am well familiar with the math behind this particular assertion. When all other things are equal, such as range, transversal, turret shooting you, etc: a 5x increase in your sig radius makes you 5x easier to hit. A 5x reduction in your sig radius makes you 5x harder to hit.

A simple examination of the turret tracking formula will reveal that there are no min() or max() functions as would be required to set a domain like "you only mitigate 1/5th of the damage". Look at the tracking formula and see for yourself: http://wiki.eve-id.net/Tracking

-Liang

Ed: I don't know how you have your EFT set up, but mine consistently shows a strong damage reduction between shooting at a 10mn Talos and a 100mn Talos. Maybe you forgot to turn on the AB or have the ships still on head on approach. You'll also see that a Domi deals 500 DPS to all frigates when it's equipped with Ogre IIs.

EFT lies.

Click on one of the graphs so that it shows transversal and repost.

-Liang

Ed: Also, show fits. ;-)

Why is the transversal so low in the first picture? It should be around 3200-3500 m/s.

-Liang

Again, why is the Talos going so slow? Also, you're already disproving your own point: it's still mitigating more than you gave it credit for even when you're doing everything you can to reduce the mitigation.

-Liang