EVE Information Portal

I actually liked what was mentioned on page 10 regarding the bot problem.



For this, I would suggest that they start the iterative processes by fixing the wording of the EULA as plenty of the botters point to the EULA as their excuse for using bots (among other non-EULA related excuses). Even though it is fun seeing a mass banning occur like 'Unholy Rage', folks like me see this as only a temporary measure as botters/RMTers will always crawl right back like a cockroach. Therefore, I like the idea of implementing minor processes that can make life harder for the bots but not an inconvenience to the honest players.



The false positives will no doubt always be an issue given how players can potentially abuse the 'report bot' option while honest players with no lives tend to behave as bots when they play. Even I tend to sit on my chair glaring at the monitor for hours on end while mining. Hey, I enjoy it, alright?

If tengu command bonuses get nerfed, at least keep it so that bonus to other T3 ships remains the same.

"Amateurs study tactics. Armchair generals study strategy. Professionals study logistics." — Omar Bradley

"The Army marches on its stomach." — Military proverb

Now please tell me again how freighters are not a tool of power projection? Where does the a mo come from? Where do the minerals to build thing in nullsec come from? What is the essential component for a strong war machine?

That's right: logistics. Freighters jumping through safe systems are the spine of null sec alliances.

PvP balance can never ever ever happen in an MMO. Nerfing PvE gameplay for sake of PvP
will always end in failure. Seen it too may times.

Read is nice.

Multiple Market's into one umm... intresting not seeing how that would work.


FW being beta for null-sec yes and no... the idea of miltia having leaders and ranks is absolutly absurd considering how many multiple entities are in each miltia with their own achievments and desired game play. Some RP some pvp (not including ISK grinding alts), who's to say that RP'ers which can be forum jockies or people who are purly after system control are to lead the pvp'ers and who's to say the pvp'ers have any say on what the RP'ers do? They mainly just co-op together to get kills and because of friendships formed in combat against a common enemy. There can be very agressive interaction between certain players or corperations in the same miltia. Don't get me wrong I reckon it could work very well, but at the same time there are so many entities half the time leaders would be ignor'd and if CTA's become common in militia many a FW player I know would say... WE ARE GOING TO HELL! and **** this.... because even though often people pvp continously you find allot of people afk doing rl stuff so fleets can often feel empty at certain times of the day...

The idea of sov mechanic's though could be very intresting because of increase desire to control systems so more conflict occures - yes pls it means somthing is actualy done to fw rather than sitting in a pile of forum complaints.

Master Account - sounds intresting.

I like this train of thought.

When you think about it, the skill system as it currently is represents a barrier of entry to certain ships or items that is overcome entirely through patience. As it is, many players see this as a feature of the game, adding to the Darwinian "survival-of-the-fittest"-style gameplay the game is most well-known for. Once this barrier is overcome, however, it is pretty much there forever and never, ever comes into account ever again.

Thing is, this adds basically nothing to the actual gameplay. Once you have it, you're done, that's it - all you have to worry about is updating your med clone. This is completely unlike, say, the ISK cost of a ship or item, which you have to recoup every time you lose. And when you think about the HUGE number of players that have been turned off from the game because of this system, well... is it really worth it? I mean, the game is well known for the (false) reputation that a new player can never, ever catch up to a veteran player because of the skill system. If you removed the skill point system, what do you have?

Obviously, removal of such a major system is not something to be done lightly. With skill point gates removed, the only barrier to entry for higher-tier items becomes isk, which means a lot of T1 ships and items suddenly become obsolete - well, more obsolete than they already are, at any rate. And, of course, it would devalue a lot of the characters that take a lot more time to create - namely, capital and supercapital pilots. The entire game would have to be rebalanced on the assumption that everyone has access to every ship and every item as soon as they possess enough ISK to attain it (and replace it).

If you ask me, however, the game SHOULD be balanced like that in the first place, because that is the inevitable end-result even with this current system, because eventually everybody will have all the skills they want at some point or another, simply because that's how the system works. But I digress.

I really like this idea, but then, I have no great investment in the skill system as it is, so of course my attachment level is far lower than most of the veterans. I think, at the very least, it's something to keep in mind.

As a Caldari EWAR pilot, I have some concerns regarding the discussed rebalancing issues with Drakes and ECM.

tl;dr #1: ECM working as intended. Pilots need to learn to PvP better.

First, ECM works fine. There are a variety of ways to defeat it. The way the mechanics work now, unless you (ECM user) has ECM skills well trained and are flying a bonused ship and your target is in a small (read sub BC) ship, your target still has a reasonable chance to escape getting jammed. Fitting an ECCM module of the appropriate type is almost a guarantee of ECM immunity for T2 cruisers or BCs and bigger vs any single jammer module.

There are also Friend or Foe missiles and drones that could care less about ECM. Recons all have a sensor recalibration delay even with max skills. So there is plenty of opportunity and method to counter ECM. It is up to more experienced pilots to learn and disseminate information to their less experienced corp/alliance mates on how to counter ECM.

tl;dr #2: If you nerf the Drake, you must also nerf the Hurricane. Nighthawk is fine.

Drake and Hurricane fulfill the exact same role in every way. PvE and PvP. They are similar in use and application. The only difference is race, such as the typical racial bonuses associated with those ships, and the profiles of the weapons they fit. If you nerf only the Drake, Hurricanes will be the only BC used in fleet PvP. That is not good for Eve in any way.

As for the Drake overshadowing the Nighthawk, what kind of crap is that? Drake =/= command ship. I have never heard of a command link actually being fitted to a T1 BC, even though they have the CPU reduction bonus for it. The Nighthawk has nearly as much dps and a much better passive tank with less fitting space (rigs/mids, and the extra low is for a Reactor Control so you can fit the damn command link). Over shadowed my ass.

Half the problem is that other racial command ships are simply better. (Read: winmatar, or Amarr armor tanking in large fleets.) Again, look at racial balancing before crying nerf for Drakes.

Separate the two roles more. Remove the silly and rarely (if ever) used command link bonus on T1 BCs and replace it with something else. Or don't replace it. Just remove it. Give the Command Ships better damage bonuses, like the one discussed. Remove kinetic bonus for RoF or an across the board medium missile damage bonus.

Nighthawk is a field command ship. Not a front line dps ship. It's like a Combat recon is to cruisers. Give it more grid so you can fit a complete T2 passive tank in the mids, same as the Drake, as well as the BCS and SPRs, as well as the full compliment of launchers and a command link. Now move that extra low that was required for the RCU and make it a mid. Congrats. Nighthawk is now better in nearly every way to the Drake. Only slightly less dps.

lol, I promise if they ever remove the SP/time delay, I will transfer all my assets to one character, suicide gank everyting in sight, biomass it, start a new toon, buy the books, and be back to suicide ganking within minutes. Clean reputation, clean employment history, clean sec status, fat wallet... there would be no reason to NOT drive out as many noobs as I can line up my crosshairs on.

To the "OMG I want invulnerable jump freighter trips" whiners... instead of having insta-jump capability, why not take the spool-up timer, but in exchange ask for some reasonable defensive accommodations?

While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.

The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.

And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community.