Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

This is a good example to build from. Drinking Coke instead of water indeed is a "lesser" choice to hydrate yourself but there are other reason to drink Coke which water just flat out can't compete with. Water does not taste like Coke for example so if you want to drink a Coke because you enjoy what a Coke taste like or even feels like, water just flat out can't compete. Someone could say you can go with Pepsi but that miss the point that they both don't taste and feel the same when drank, at least to someone who drink a lot of it. You have a reason to drink Coke over water and over Pepsi too because Coke is better at "something" over either of those in way that can't really be replicated with another product. The end specification are finality. The taste of Coke is unique so wanting that flavor is a valid reason to drink it. Wanting Coke because it has sugar in it for example is not really unless you are willing to accept you are using the wrong product to fulfill that requirment of getting sugar via a drink because you could get it in a more efficient way.

The DCU falls in the sugar portion of the problem. Getting 30% resist in hull is a step to 2 possible goal. You either want more raw EHP and use resist on hull because ship have a lot of hull HP OR you somehow plan to use those resist to amplify the effectiveness of remote or local reps on this taking band. That is all that resist in hull will ever give you just like sugar in Coke will only ever work has a way to increase your blood sugar level. These goals are technically viable goal to want but they are not done effectively by those choice.

Using screws in the place of nails to build something is a stupid choice in 99% of the case because it's inneficient to work with and also cost more quite often BUT if you only effectively have access to screws where you are building, they become quite a good choice. Any ship that used nails (DCU) before the patch, the use of nails (DCU) will still be optimal unless you only have screws available. Anything else will be sub-optimal. Can you still do it? You bet you can but that does not make such choice a good one.

The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers.

And it should require more than one freighter pilot to counter the work of all of those pilots.


Ships loss, kill rights, 50% chance of the cargo being destroyed, theft, counter ganks, logi, ecm, smartbombs, web alts and so on. Ganking is the single most punished and risky activity in eve simply because of all the mechanics in place.


Why would they do anything outside of protect their own interests?

We won't choose them because it will die every time to ships that are fitting a DCU.

Until you post this magical fit you are simply going to be called a lair.

You're the one at the extremes end of the spectrum, I am afraid, because all typical fits needed it before and will need it tomorrow.

There is nothing wrong with special silly snowflake fits, I have a number myself. But they don't come out for real work. Ever. For this reason they are not considered for balance discussion.

Making a module "do less" doesn't automatically make it less attractive, especially when the main reason for sporting it is untouched.

It's a bit like the T3 defensive systems changes. Values changed, but everything stayed the same.

You won't choose them. Also not all fits are for PvP.

That's the same thing! You want people to understand that no matter what choice they make, if it's not the choice you would make it's wrong.

It's not silly though, it's simply not the same choice you would make. Someone having a preference that doesn't match yours or doesn't meet your criteria or efficiency base on your own metrics doesn't automatically make them silly. If I choose to have a ship that I want to have a minimum of 30% hull resists an be focused on speed, I previously required a DCU and now don't. You can still turn around and tell me I'm silly for having such requirements for my fit, but your opinion is irrelevant as it's about personal preference and each players individual needs, not just what you think is important to you.

No, I'm really not. What I'm saying is that they intended to make the DCU mildly less efficient to reduce it as a choice a small amount, and they succeeded in doing just that. You are looking at it, thinking it's not made a big enough difference then making the wild claim that it makes no difference and won't be dropped by anyone (which I happen to know for certain is false since I've dropped a couple of DCUs already). How can you expect to be taken seriously if you make such ridiculous claims?

Maybe if you stopped deliberately misquoting me.....or is it simply a comprehension issue on your part?

I have always been up front and clear that my points are around mainline fleet work. You know, the type referred to by the OP.

I make the claim no mainline hull use will see the retirement of the module and I stand by that.

The majority of use serious cases still have this as a mandatory module.

No-one gives a toss about non PvP fittings, either. Leave that crap at the door.


Lets face it, if mainline doctrines were changing, we'd have examples left and right. I'd not even be arguing with because my own fittings would change. But they are not and there is a reason for that.

The fact that some people are too inexperienced to understand that the module is as essential today as previously and they are unfitting it in their ignorance does not render my analysis invalid in any way shape or form.

Inexperienced people making bad choices doesn't make those choices a good idea just because they do it. Millions of people smoke, doesn't make it smart.

Wait, you think ship balancing is about anything else other than PvP?

And you're telling me you DCU a PvE fit?

hahahahahaha

Or that those hull resists will make you take a DCU off a PvE fit, where it should never have been in the first place?

Get a grip. Your trolling is not longer even plausible.

Your argument is literally "I can decide to make sub-optimal fit that will no longer need the DCU so the DCU is not a better options in the vast majority of the cases".

Ishtars were not really good ships because if I used them with no drones and a full rack of civilian guns, I would not have won that many fights even before all the nerfs...

And yet you demand gankers to use large fleets to attack a single ship. If haulers should not be asked to use multiple pilots to protect themselves then gankers should not need large fleet to attack them either.

Why?

There is already a method of avoiding bumping altogether and even if you are bumped you have several options to get away. The only problem is that you want to be able to solo your way out of every problem you face with a simple click of a button. Equally simply slapping more and more EHP on freighters is not the answer to poor piloting.