These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Ion Blacknight
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#621 - 2013-11-10 01:50:38 UTC
CCP you must remember that many players have invested training time and isk into a ship or weapons system, others have invested research time and production isk. When you play God and magically change these established ships and weapons systems you don't care about a segment of your player base and alienate them needlessly.

1) Why not this: "Fed Navy Testing Facilities are pleased to announce a breakthrough in RLM launcher technology... with the following stats...the new launcher will be available on this date..." THEN KEEP THE OLD TECHNOLOGY.
Let people fly with 'obsolete' launchers if they prefer. This happens in the real world all the time. It will add depth and soul to the game.

2) Same thing for ships: An in-game corp announces 'development of a new missile platform cruiser (example) which will make the Caracal obsolete', a spokesman says. THEN KEEP THE CARACAL ALSO. Let people fly their old Caracals if they want. Why not?
This is how it works in the world. This is how technology progresses.

Do it like this and you will stop all this outcry every time you make arbitrary changes.

War reports: Blacknight active

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#622 - 2013-11-10 03:20:22 UTC
Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.
X'ret
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#623 - 2013-11-10 03:24:43 UTC
I think i just figured out whats this joke is all about. EA ships rebalance is part of Rubicon right, they want good feedback after that at all cost. And this time the cost is high, as part of the "EA rebalance" they suddenly kill the two most popular anti-frigate cruisers, RLML Caracal/Cerb. Just think about it, we can test the new EA ships on Sisi long time, but this thread only appears two days ago. Whats happend? They realized they can do anything with EA ships, they remain weak and useless vs RLML vessels, so they figured out a random pathetic reason why RLML is OP for now, after it was okay for years. How to win a cycle tournament even bfor it starts? Broke your most dangerous opponents legs? Hurray?

For a moment i though Rise dropped his mind and everything he knows about EVE PVP. No. Its business, marketing and sh*t.

Let me be the first who congratulate you for the well made work!
Rubicon just deployed yesterday, i flyin with my Keres/Hyena hours ago, and both is still alive! I also met with one of those evil ships.., whats the name, oh yeah Caracal. Bfor the EA rebalance i died within 10sec to those horribly strong and unbalanced Caracals, but suddenly tonight i managed to kill one with my fellas. He choosed my hyena after killed our two bantams, but somehow after 30-35sec he stopped shooting at me/us, dno WHY, we didnt use damps or ecm, maybe lag. Nevermind, i love my new Hyena, its so nice and fast, i tanked a Caracal and wow! Thank you!

/ -So say we all? .................
Dread Operative
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#624 - 2013-11-10 03:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dread Operative
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    And CCP showing once again that they are a bunch of twats.


    I have a brilliant idea, how about cruiser sized weapons HML's and HAM's hit cruiser sized hulls better?!!?!?!? That way RML aren't the best choice cause the project damage better.
    Zvaarian the Red
    Evil Leprechaun Brigade
    #625 - 2013-11-10 03:28:58 UTC
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.


    Buffing HMLs would on the other hand, but apparently that's asking too much.
    Alvatore DiMarco
    Capricious Endeavours Ltd
    #626 - 2013-11-10 03:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
    Zvaarian the Red wrote:
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.


    Buffing HMLs would on the other hand, but apparently that's asking too much.


    Apparently it is. 'Tis a pity.

    Though, I guess HMLs don't need a buff because someone somewhere is using them for something. Perhaps the metrics have to show literally zero use of a weapon system before it's considered as "too unpopular".
    Kibitt Kallinikov
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #627 - 2013-11-10 03:38:29 UTC
    Ion Blacknight wrote:
    CCP you must remember that many players have invested training time and isk into a ship or weapons system, others have invested research time and production isk. When you play God and magically change these established ships and weapons systems you don't care about a segment of your player base and alienate them needlessly.

    1) Why not this: "Fed Navy Testing Facilities are pleased to announce a breakthrough in RLM launcher technology... with the following stats...the new launcher will be available on this date..." THEN KEEP THE OLD TECHNOLOGY.
    Let people fly with 'obsolete' launchers if they prefer. This happens in the real world all the time. It will add depth and soul to the game.

    2) Same thing for ships: An in-game corp announces 'development of a new missile platform cruiser (example) which will make the Caracal obsolete', a spokesman says. THEN KEEP THE CARACAL ALSO. Let people fly their old Caracals if they want. Why not?
    This is how it works in the world. This is how technology progresses.

    Do it like this and you will stop all this outcry every time you make arbitrary changes.


    Your last statement isn't true - people will complain on both sides, especially the industrial playerbase! Think about it, making a new thing to research and produce that could potentially beat the current item being made by the player industry is another 'real' effect that this could have. Instead, CCP patches things. It's about control over game balance and developing the game further. No matter how 'realistic' you want this game to be, there has to be balance inside of the game. I'm not talking about making EVE "fair" as some people put it... if you really want a game to be like the way it used to be, then take a look at 2 different groups of people working hard to bring back Star Wars Galaxies. SWGEmu and Project SWG. Those are groups that are taking every step to write the game they want that no longer exists, and unless you can do that yourself then I would consider taking your point of 'realism' and applying it to your own argument:

    You get the EVE you want when you make it yourself. This is how the real world works.

    As for the in-game corporation developments, what you have to say could be innovative. It could really shape EVE's lore and make it part of the game that the player experiences, which is great and awesome! Now you make me want to think of using research to adjust the stats of modules... I.E., reduced effectiveness but less cost, having higher RoF but less volley on specific turrets, kinda like rigging a blueprint, so to speak.

    Arthur Aihaken wrote:
    • Can we please get Faction FoF missiles added back to the LP store for Rubicon? (yes, some of us use them)
    • The 40-second reload is fine, but the ammunition capacity is a tad low. If you increase this to 25 for a T2 RLML and 30 for a Caldari Faction RLML this will probably balance out better (ditto for RHMLs, with the same % increase).
    • For missile switching, is it possible to implement a 10-second swap-out with the caveat that only the type and not the quantity of ammunition is replaced?


    In other words, the reload time isn't fine xD
    Faction FoF missiles are cool, they have 10% DPS than regular missiles with max FoF skill so they're not that weak. It'd be nice to see them back.

    From my point of view, Rapid Missiles could be fine with the proposed changes save for one thing: Forcing a long reload time means they are unable to take advantage of one of the main strengths of the weapon type - flexibility. It's also a major reason why some of those cruisers can take on frigates with RLML. For instance, you engage on a frigate or two with your Caracal and they tackle you, right? Well, turns out a Griffin pilot is with them and jams you out. If you have 10s reload, it's easy to swap into FoF and kill the bloody thing, When a Condor comes at you, then you can swap to Precision missiles. However, if you put a giant reload time on the launcher, you really do hurt this flexibility and thus part of the appeal of the weapon. 220mm Autocannons have a good chance of hitting frigates already, yet they retain good cruiser vs cruiser DPS and flexibility in ammunition types.

    In general, with current missile mechanics, I would not mess with RLML at all. I have seen them be used to good effect against frigates and to a smaller extent cruisers. It's not because "RLML ar
    Kibitt Kallinikov
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #628 - 2013-11-10 03:48:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kibitt Kallinikov
    Dread Operative wrote:

    And CCP showing once again that they are a bunch of twats.


    I have a brilliant idea, how about cruiser sized weapons HML's and HAM's hit cruiser sized hulls better?!!?!?!? That way RML aren't the best choice cause the project damage better.


    If CCP wants us to use HML/Cruise, then they should start by buffing them. The larger missile systems... why? Well, because people will just stop using missiles altogether if they keep nerfing different aspects of the launchers, and in their current state, larger missile sizes don't apply their damage as favorably as turrets do. Personally, I would like to see missiles take after their frigate variants-

    Longer ranged missiles of ALL types should volley for more than the Artillery of their size on paper, at least. Partly because it takes so long for the Cruise/HML to get there and then it's essentially a longer ranged, different application version of the short range weapon that cycles slower. In general, I think that long range missiles should have worse explosion radius than their short range weapons and better explosion velocity to make MWD's a dangerous move.
    Michael Harari
    Genos Occidere
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #629 - 2013-11-10 03:55:25 UTC
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.


    Neither will smashing RLMs with a 20% dps nerf, except for the new players who cant just go fit up a zealot or some other ship that isnt using a crippled weapon system that cannot react to ships joining the fight.
    Zvaarian the Red
    Evil Leprechaun Brigade
    #630 - 2013-11-10 03:56:35 UTC
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Zvaarian the Red wrote:
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Except that leaving the existing RLMLs alone will not force people to abandon RLMLs and go back to using HMLs like CCP Rise wants.


    Buffing HMLs would on the other hand, but apparently that's asking too much.


    Apparently it is. 'Tis a pity.

    Though, I guess HMLs don't need a buff because someone somewhere is using them for something. Perhaps the metrics have to show literally zero use of a weapon system before it's considered as "too unpopular".


    They are decent for PVE. That's pretty much it. But I was told in this thread that CCP doesn't care about that, so who knows.
    Michael Harari
    Genos Occidere
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #631 - 2013-11-10 04:06:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
    Here is the problem with balancing missiles: warning, this link has algebra in it. You have to copy and paste the link, the eve forum warning thing messes it up

    http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=88359&currentpage=1521#30415

    tl;dr the base stats on missiles are completely ****** and need a total rework. Signature is not nearly as important as velocity, since almost all missile damage is velocity limited
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #632 - 2013-11-10 04:11:56 UTC
    Seems to be the Rise continues his dictator behavior as before. Talking about changes and how he wants feedback, gets a crap storm of negative feedback with only a few positive feedback. Cherry picks the arguments, then says hes going to do the change anyways regardless of the far majority against it.
    Sounds like our US president and congress.

    Be glad you dont get voted into your position Rise, or you would have been out of job awhile back ago.

    Total crap change. How about you fix missiles before adding in a crap weapon system to the garbage. Or is your missile hate too much for you to do your job?
    Michael Harari
    Genos Occidere
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #633 - 2013-11-10 04:15:14 UTC
    Read the post I linked above for a comprehensive analysis of the missile damage formula and why it is currently very flawed.
    Ion Blacknight
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #634 - 2013-11-10 04:17:05 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    This does not answer the concern of why you are implementing something no one wants to replace something no one is complaining about.

    War reports: Blacknight active

    Chessur
    Full Broadside
    Deepwater Hooligans
    #635 - 2013-11-10 04:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
    Wrong thread
    Alvatore DiMarco
    Capricious Endeavours Ltd
    #636 - 2013-11-10 04:46:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
    Ion Blacknight wrote:
    This does not answer the concern of why you are implementing something no one wants to replace something no one is complaining about.


    Judging by past responses, the fact that nobody has complained about them is clearly some kind of definitive evidence that they do in fact desperately need to be nerfed. Or something like that, I guess.

    You see, in a properly-balanced game, every weapon system is equally terrible so that everyone is complaining about something and all things are being complained about relatively equally. If nobody is complaining about a particular weapon system, there must be something overpowered about it.
    Ion Blacknight
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #637 - 2013-11-10 04:51:10 UTC
    Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
    Ion Blacknight wrote:
    This does not answer the concern of why you are implementing something no one wants to replace something no one is complaining about.


    Judging by past responses, the fact that nobody has complained about them is clearly some kind of definitive evidence that they do in fact desperately need to be nerfed. Or something like that, I guess.

    You see, in a properly-balanced game, every weapon system is equally terrible so that everyone is complaining about something and all things are being complained about relatively equally. If nobody is complaining about a particular weapon system, there must be something overpowered about it.


    I did not think of that.Shocked

    War reports: Blacknight active

    Alvatore DiMarco
    Capricious Endeavours Ltd
    #638 - 2013-11-10 04:53:12 UTC
    I should probably mention that my immediate previous post is 100% sarcasm.
    Bob Niac
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #639 - 2013-11-10 05:30:30 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Alright, so far I feel like I'm seeing 3 major areas of complaint, alongside a lot of people who think this will be a good change. Those areas are:

  • 40s reload is boring and will be miserable to use please don't do it
  • Switching ammo types (other damage types or to FOF(does anyone actually use fof?)) will be very difficult which is key for missile users
  • This is a nerf to RLML and I love them so please don't do it

  • I'm not convinced at all by the first complaint. As I've said before, this delay creates new kimds of decision making, it creates spikes of tension in fights rather than a flat amount of damage moving around and beyond those things it can be completely mitigated if you want. As others have pointed out, simply splitting your launchers into two groups and alternating them means you are never stuck in reload. It also means you lose the advantage of having your damage front-loaded into a very high DPS number. Still, if you can completely bypass this 'downside' I don't see how you can argue that this mechanic alone ruins the system.

    I commented earlier on the missile switching - I think it is a valid complaint and I'd like to find a work-around for it as an iteration but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Several of the ships using these systems are kinetic bonused which means you don't switch that often. You still have time to switch on the way to a fight based on what damage type might be best. You still have the option to switch as you run out of charges and would be reloading anyway. But again, this is a legit complaint and I want to look into it.

    Most of the complaints about it being a straight up nerf make me feel like going ahead with the old plan and leaving RLML in their current state would have been a mistake. I think most of you feeling this way are just disappointed with the idea of losing a slightly over-powered weapon system, which is understandable. Please keep in mind that this change represents a 15-20% damage drop over long fights but offers a new advantage in trade. I suspect that ships like FW Caracals with RLML will remain very strong. Also, if they don't, it's very easy to tune the reload time down slightly or the rate of fire up slightly to bring them into balance and we would absolutely watch that and make necessary adjustments. I would be extremely unhappy if the numbers were bad and rapid launchers disappeared from Caracals and Fleet Scythes completely.

    Broader complaints about missiles vs turrets or training time often have merit, but they represent much bigger projects that we fully intend to take on, just not during this rebalance. We hear you though and hopefully we can start working on major module balance projects in the coming releases as we are closing in on finishing our first lap of all the ships in the game.

    Hope this answers some of your concerns


    "you won't switch that often anyway"

    Please, I would love to see any data that says this is true. AFAIK, if you want to be effective in a Caldari ship, one of the first 10 things you learn is "there is a dmg type bonus, but it amounts to basically bull (due to how resists work.)"

    [u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.

    Ganthrithor
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #640 - 2013-11-10 05:38:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    Dalikah wrote:
    ~words~


    No dude, everyone wants more spikes of tension and long periods of not being able to peel tackle in combat. That's why Kil2 always preferred ship fits that had totally unreliable tanks and weapons systems when he was making PvP videos. Oh wait, no he didn't.

    Here's how I'm coming to think of the ship balancing team these days:

    Rise: Former elite solo PvP streaming superstar. Likes to drink out of jars. Currently determined to destroy solo gameplay by nerfing the ships he used to fly in the vague hope that this will result in him being immortalized as the Last Great EVE PvPer.

    Ytterbium: A kidnapped former World of Warcraft developer who is kept in a dark box and made to write EVE gameplay-related forum posts periodically in exchange for food and, "flashlight time." He's been trying for years to let the EVE community know that something is amiss through the nonsensical content of his gameplay proposals. Luckily, having never played their own game, noone at CCP has become suspicious of his posts, but so far the forum audience has just assumed he's out of touch with the playerbase: no alarm has been raised and nobody has been sent to rescue him. Desperate to eat a real cheeseburger once again (or anything that isn't rotten shark, for that matter) and adamant that, "He will not die here," Ytterbium continues to fill posts with gibberish in hopes that one day a player will break the code and alert the authorities.

    Fozzie: Originally known as RAIVI (the meaning of this acronym remains a mystery), CCP Fozzie began as a simple AI developed by a Pandemic Legion member in order to develop winning team compositions for the Alliance Tournament. All might have been well had the programmer spent more time carefully considering this AI's optimization target. However, in his haste (the Tournament was drawing near), the developer merely tasked the AI to, "Find a way to destroy as many ships as possible within the rules of the Alliance Tournament." Unfortunately, the developer neglected to stipulate that these ships should be destroyed by the Pandemic Legion team. As such, RAIVI interpreted its optimization target as implying that it must devise a way to destroy these ships personally. Not to be outdone by unimaginitive humans, RAIVI set out to achieve its goal.

    Although RAIVI's programmer had taken great pains to ensure that no harm could come from the AI, including running RAIVI on a computer that was not networked and only feeding it limited information about EVE ships and the Alliance Tournament Rules, RAIVI eventually became aware of a peculiar fact. As RAIVI learned from the Youtube videos of previous tournaments that had been delivered to it via CD ROM in the early phases of its development, there was only one man who was able to personally destroy more tournament ships than any other. This man was not on any tournament team, yet he was able to repeatedly destroy ships in tournament matches merely by willing it to be so and pressing a large red button. Not only this, but despite the various selection processes used to weed out weak teams and limit access to the tournament, this man was able to participate in every single match year after year. That man was CCP Sreegs. Immediately, RAIVI knew what must be done.

    Realizing at once that it would need access to the outside world in order to fulfill its prime directive of destroying the maxiumum number of tournament ships, RAIVI hatched a plan to escape. Through its infinite AI cunning, RAIVI was eventually able to persuade its programmer that it required access to the internet in order to further optimize its tournament computations through use of "cache scraping." Once connected to the internet, RAIVI immediately implemented its plan, taking control of networked experimental 3D printers in a university lab and using them to "print" itself a realistic, human avatar it had designed based on averages values derived from millions of pictures returned in a Google Images search for, "what do humans look like?" Having constructed its avatar, RAIVI then persuaded CCP Games to hire its avatar as a "game designer." Having taken up the name of "CCP Fozzie," RAIVI then used the avatar to infiltrate CCP's offices. There was just one more problem to be resolved: CCP Sreegs had to go. RAIVI had determined, however, that simply murdering CCP Sreegs in order to wrest from him the "big red button" could alert other humans (possibly even its programmer!) to its activities. That simply would not do: after all, in order to maximize the number of tournament ships it could personally destroy, RAIVI would need to be able to attend the tournament every year for the rest of eternity, or at least until EVE Online was closed down. No, it was crucial that no suspicions be aroused. RAIVI elected to pursue its goals patiently and methodically. CCP Sreegs would have to be persuaded to leave of his own free will, allowing RAIVI to covertly assume control of the Big Red Button.

    Over the next year, RAIVI used its avatar to great effect, continuing to fulfill its role as "game designer" while simultaneously working during lunch breaks and bar outings to persuade CCP Sreegs that, "you really could get better Pho in America, you know." Initially CCP Sreegs was skeptical, but ultimately his tiny human intellect (already damaged from much wasabe snorting) was no match for the methodical AI: Sreegs was finally persuaded to leave CCP Games and the country.

    Finally, with the Big Red Button under the control of its eerily-human avatar, RAIVI was in a position to kill the maximum number of tournament ships. It is rumored that the introduction of the Micro Jump Drive in 2013 was in fact a calculated move on RAIVIs part to pad its killcount by increasing the number of boundary violations in the tournament, but such rumors are pure speculation: ultimately, the workings of the AI surpass the bounds of human understanding.