EVE Information Portal

No. In EVE you always have ot face the consequences of your actions, always been like that. Whether it means 'fly what you can afford to lose', taking risks in PvP, market, investment, SP, whatever really, it's all a calculated risk.

I trained Amarr BS 5 on Misanth before the nos-nerf and bandwith introduction, when Gallente completely raped Amarr and we all did "lol, Amarr" on forums (for years). I trained Amarr Carrier on Misanth and bought an Aeon before they were buffed. Those are risks (SP wise) that I chose to take.

Respecs is just utter **** for this game, it's for WoW and other MMO's where you have a level cap and a fixed PvE content, or arena style PvP.

Quote: Cloak Hunters: CCP brought up the possibility of a future cloak-hunting ship or mechanic as a hypothetical; this was described as 'more like finding a submarine than pulling a blanket off' a cloaked ship. The CSM was cautiously positive about the idea of a cloak-hunting vessel of some kind.

HAH, this is a big FU to all those "don't mess with my afk cloak" trolls that always show up in any thread with the word cloak in the title.

Seriously though I'm very happy to see that CCP has seen and understands that cloaking is broken as far as the inability of people to catch them once they are cloaked up. An idea thats been tossed around on some of the now troll threads that are the counter cloak ideas, is to require cloaks to have a fuel consumption that removes the ability to permanently afk cloak. This combined with the ship idea from CCP would in my opinion fix cloaking in general and bring it more in line with the rest of EVE as far as the risk v reward.

+1 anyone with a clue knows that those fortress can fall and those with a fortress are under almost constant threat, its a good balance, and while the removal of loading messages and jumps has made WH life a crappy grind for small corps, its still preferable over living under our self appointed Null/CSM Overlords

One other thought about the composition of the 2013 CSM, going for the STV is a really crappy system, but the current system which is 100% popular vote based on all at-large seats is also an unbalanced popularity contest.

without getting too long winded, the ideal system would have the following checks (both for players and CCP)
--Limit candidates based on a selection of corp sizes, 10 candidates from small 35-75member corps, 10 from 75-200, 10 from 200-500, 10 from 500-unlimited this would give players with a wide variety of experience a slot
(how to limit? no idea, and the numbers above are arbitrary, the idea is to stop folks in 1-man corps from clogging up the system)

--Limit the number of times you can be on the CSM, this has both good and bad effects, but new blood is always good

--divide up the CSM into 4 seats and 3 at-large seats
(NULL/WH/LS/HS) how to ensure the delegates actually care about their seats is another topic (perhaps based on where your corp HQ/med clone is based?)

--Largest vote-earner is still chair, until the CSM meets, and then they should elect among themselves who they want to lead (I think this is how it is now, not sure atm)

--CCP might also want to appoint a ghost CSM to act as a counterbalance to a fully popularly elected CSM to ensure a wide variety of opinions are voiced and understood (they can already draw from forums and their own surveys and their volunteer programs, but resolving what is important to "most" players vs what's important to the CSM will continue to be an issue as long as they are all elected in the current system)

That's all I got for now...

As a professional JF pilot, I strongly disagree with having the Jump Drive spool-up time apply to Jump Freighters.

According to the minutes, the two primary reasons for this change are (as I understand them);

1. The current state of session change allows a travel fit capital ship to jump into a system and then jump out again before its invulnerability ends, allowing them to be untouchable in lowsec.
2. The fact that point 1 allows capital ships to move very fast across the universe, causing power projection problems.

I will address these two issues, I and elaborate on why I do not believe that they apply to Jump Freighters.

1. Simply put, Jump Freighters cannot be travel fit. It is impossible for a JF to cap up quickly enough that they can use this method to move around. Thus, even with the session-change timer changes, JF pilots with any sense are still restricted to station systems.
2. This point is invalid twofold - given my rebuttal to the first point, JF cannot move that rapidly and are (more or less) restricted to jumping to cynos lit within docking range of a station. Furthermore, JF are not a tool of power projection. They have zero offensive use whatsoever.

As it stands, Jump Freighters cannot be effectively 'camped in' by a hostile force in lowsec. I do not consider this to be a problem, though I am sure some would agree. With the proposed changes, a JF would have to sit on the undock of the station it is attempting to leave for 60s, with 30s of invulnerability. That allows 30s in which they can be bumped out of docking range and killed and/or tackled and otherwise disallowed to jump. This also applies to docked capitals of other types.

However, this poses a problem for JF pilots. As stated earlier, our ships have zero capability for self-defense. Thus, if we are on an undock in lowsec and vulnerable, there is no reason why a lone pilot should not tackle that JF. A single pilot (or even a small gang) might approach tackling a carrier on a station with some trepidation. That simply doesn't apply to JF, meaning this change would increase the amount of time a JF pilot loses being camped in and thus would cripple our ability to operate in lowsec. Gate guns aside, there would be no risk to camping us in.

TL;DR - The stated reasons for the spool-up change do not apply to Jump Freighters, and thus the change should not apply to that class of ship.

They didn't when MoM's lost clone vats. Or when Bombers lost Cruise missiles. Or when anything else got nerfed. Like everyone has said, they had the use of those drone skills. And CCP has never recompensed pilots for a mechanics change (not counting when skills got removed), and shouldn't start now.

Any discussion of respecs needs to be divorced from a discussion of Super pilot drone SP.

took a while to read, but it was worthwhile.

i'll make a detailed post later, but for now, i'll just say i have seen lots of goods things, and very few bad things.
lots of ideas i like for the future on it.

Regarding CSM elections...

In addition to voting *for* a candidate, everyone should also be able to vote *against* a candidate.

This would provide a bit of balance for the independent (non-alliance) candidates by allowing non-alliance players to dilute the concentrated voting power of the larger alliances.

Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What?

The Drake "does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings?

The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks.

If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk.

For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus)

Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere.

PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in.

All that matters there is relative reward for various activities.

Drakes are too versatile in PvP. And that's where balance between ships actually matters.

MAKE ALL STATIONS KICK OUT! caps lock!