Ships & Modules

I would go one step further and say they're fairly well represented in nullsec too (for a race that doesn't have a fleet doctorine bs/bc): ranis, arazu, lach, nyx, erebus to name the most common. Bit of an advantage if you think about it, seeing as fleet docs change while support ships and supers are fairly static.



Yeah that's what I was getting at with the "vOv numbers," bit.

I could be an ass and ask how much of that is camping of the Ossogur gate, but I... guess I'm an ass and am asking how much of that is camping of the Ossogur gate. How much of that is camping of the Ossogur gate?

Way less than is any 0.0 entry system. ;-)

-Liang

Hm, that got much longer than intended. I'll look into snipping it off a bit when i can find the time.

Please don't, very good post as it is.

All changes that would emphasize actual playing (as in being logged in and doing stuff) and inhabiting the systems would be good.

Gallente ships are p. good for solo and some kind of small gang (i will say under 5-6 ships)

For the 0.0 they don t have a ship of any class that can be used (as core ship) in a fleet. With few exception that are very spec ships like Ares, Phobos and Lachesis/Arazu. And both tackler and HIC can be swapped for another race without lost much.
The only ship that Gallente have and that is very useful in a large warfare setup is the Lachesis.

Oh well, subcap at least.

Imho.

He should have said: "Gallente is perfectly fine where the most solo/small pvp happens" since he said outside null sec a line before.

I had a good reply written up to you, but the forums ate it, as per usual.

I forgot you need to copy-paste into notepad when you deal with recent design quality .

cba.

edit: let's give it a shot and pray we don't get forum-clubbed again.

My contention was quite simply that Gallente are perfectly fine up until 100-man gangs, and even the largest alliances don't supercede 100-man gangs unless it's a coalition-wide, pre-notice CTA. All the way up to 100-man gangs and static objectives both ship balance and scale is comparatively alright. It may be advantageous to be the 100-man side, but a 25-man group can, have and will get a chance to engage - outside of volume-based objective.

You can fight Goons with your little corp, in fact, more people should. Goons are pretty awesome in how they like PvP and will always come no matter what. There are far more groups out there who are more adverse and less entertaining.

More is always going to be better, i like that. Right now however more is a crutch that the game-design drive up, i dislike that.

With POCOs, alliances in FW and Tier 3 BC from Crucible, our designers proved that design still go in that direction.

With continued discussion of Gallente, Drakes and Titans they and many with them prove that they still don't understand the real problems in the game, or do not prioritize solving the problems in order.

Are Drakes bad? Yes, they are too cost-effective. Is the problem cost or effect? The problem is cost. Losing them is next to meaningless and means you can continue on fighting despite losing time and time again. It's a direct opposition to the ideas this game was designed around, and more reminiscent of graveyard-respawns in other games. Drake effect on the other hand is quite tolerable up to 100-man gangs. Alot of people don't see that split.

Are Titans bad? They are bad in a lesser blob, and possibly alone. They profile, however, because almost any counter to numbers of recent years have been twarted by more numbers. Ishtars? numbers, Zealots? numbers, Legions? numbers, Baddons? numbers, Capitals? numbers, Tengus? numbers. Supercapitals? not yet numbers. Do you see a trend there? What is the driving factor? Where should priority be? Without a volume-game, high volume resources will not be a necessity. Then it may be a good idea to revisit supers and their role.

Are Gallente bad? Not at all, they are good solo, they are good in pairs, they are good in 5-10 man gangs, they are good in 15-25 man gangs and they are good in 25-50 man gangs. Past that point you begin to hit performance issues among their general purpose ships (not their capitals etc.) and their application become irreliable. Considering that in a skirmish it's possible engaging 1:2 or even 1:4 you should be given a certain sense of scale.

Are POCOs bad? They appeal in the sense that any change is a good change, because they have created content for lowsec. They are double-edged however, because they are still volume-based (if only at lesser volume). Reinforcing them with capitals is still better, so people will do that. Reinforcing them with numbers is still better, so people will do that. In both the north and the south you will see coalitions forming to deal with that, that means 100-man and/or capital-based gangs that further drive the number-game and hit levels where Gallente, Drakes and Titans become issues. It also exclude smaller, less resourceful groups from interacting.

Are Tier 3 BC bad? They are still a high-access, low-demand, cost-efficient design that scale with numbers. They grow exponentially better with size and they are affordable to lose. They overshadow a number of existing counters to other BC, in order to better deal with the percieved plague of other BC (yet reinforce the actual plague). What painters and webs do for XL-guns down to Cruisers, they also do for L-guns down to frigates.

One can either continue to drink the cool-aid, and feed the band-aid or realize that numbers is the #1 problem and that design and scale outside of coalition CTA is quite tolerable - while proposed changes to ships, or transplanting poor design from null to low, only make that worse. It's letting stupid run loose.

In the end, you are quite right - "That would be a change to SOV mechanics, not the ships themselves".
The #1 priority in the game should be just that.

All of these are problems that come with a design-focus to combat lag and streamline ship adaption into such an environment, while letting pre-existing balance falter instead of curbing "ludicrous scale", that has manifested itself since 2006, and run rampant since 2008. Today it's 2012, that's six years of postponing, ignoring, circumventing and failure to deal with what is likely the most important core problem in the game (more numbers, less actors).

This is a sandbox-game, which means everything cascade. If certain aspects of the game become inaccessible, marginalized groups will begin to clump up other areas. This is why we have a reactive flow of empire-low-fw-npc-wh-sov that push people back into empire. Lowsec have always been rewarding enough to venture into, but since 2006 we have seen a concentration of highly experienced players there.

I'm sorry if i hurf out everything at once, but yeah, everything is relative.

If i just want to kill "Drakes" with "Gallente", i can do that with Myrms, Deimos, Ishtars, Proteus, Razus + Nemesis (Sins), Lachs + Talos or Domis, Thannies and Moros up to virtually any non-sov relative scale. I can also support most of those gangs with Oneiros, Eos or Proteus to my liking.

I could even point you to specific groups that have done so and videos where that is showcased over the past few years. To some degree i already have, and maybe i shouldn't have said more than this to begin with...

That would have been boring though, no?

I could also have been even more complicated and said "a relative between alpha, dps, buffer, mitigation and remotes", but i figured just throwing a blunt "100-man gangs" out there was sufficient and accurate enough. You can't please everyone and post length have limitation (beyond timing out ).

No, I said exactly what I meant. And what the numbers support. So sorry that it doesn't support your preconceived bias about how "~elite PVP~ lowsuck gankbears" are useless and Noble Mighty 0.0 Empires are the rightful rulers and dictators of all things in Eve including ship balance.

Also, I already covered why those numbers are bullshit. In detail, with examples.

-Liang