Jita Park Speakers Corner

Yeah. I don't think that it's NH alone that needs some general buff (other than evident PG issue). The whole CS class is lacking and as I wrote somewhere in this thread I'd rather wait and see what CCP are going to do before making any suggestions.

P.S.

Yeah remark goes to NH in general rather than assumption it instapops frigs, which is not really the case

All righty, wall of text incoming.

First off, I have to say, with the amount of self righteous bullshit being spouted in this thread props to you Fon for keeping your head on straight. Fon's political views, or hell, anything about his personal life IRL are not our concern. He's running for CSM, not the Kremlin. As long as his head is in the game that's all we need to know.

For the most part I agree with your points, but there are a few i disagree on and a couple that I think you're on the right track but could use some tweaking.

1) Completely agree

2) Rather than blanketing all buffer tanking modules with a -speed penalty I would rather see something unique to each type of tanking. Armour plates are fine I think, the only problem with them I see is that trimarks are not stacking penalised. However the penalties on shield mods are a joke. But on the other hand, as most native shield tanking ships are quite slow (Especially caldrari), applying the same speed penalty from mods and rigs would not be the right course of action, I feel. I'd much rather see something like -% shield recharge as the shield rig/module penalty to put an end to ridiculous, skill free, capacitor free passive shield tanking. If you want to stack recharge that's fine, but having monstrous recharge AND a very large buffer is frankly ridiculous.

On the other hand for active tanking I believe that there are a few tweaks required here too, not in repair amount but in fitting requirements. Notably those of LARs and XLSBs. These modules take much too much powergrid and CPU respectively, and gimp the ship fitting them rather severely in terms of weapon options (In most cases).

3) I like where you are going with this idea, but unfortunately I think from a code perspective having a cyno become dynamic to how many ships are on grid would be too difficult and CCP would not implement it. What I'd rather see is a blanket delay on non covert cynos, of what timefram I can't really say, so that dropping a cyno and calling in the cap(s) is actually a tactical decision and not a 'press button, get cap support' mechanic.

4) I agree that tracking enhancers are a bit too good for what they are, however I do think that the TE change, because it removed HMLs as being the be all and end all of medium range combat, did some good. However would you just be pushing for a faloff nerf or optimal as well? because as far as I can tell the use of TEs and TCs seems to be relatively evenly split between ACs and Pulse lasers, so I don't think I would support nerfing the faloff without also nerfing the optimal bonus. (This is taking into account that ACs require more faloff bonus to get the same range:damage ratio benefit that lasers get from optimal).

The second part of this point seems to counteract the previous point about wanting to stealth buff gallente. If DCUs were to be nerfed, gallente ships would suffer the most, especially the active tanking variety, as they generally rely on their high structure EHP to give them some leeway in between rep cycles. In addition, a significant nerf to DCUs would break frigate combat, as currently a DCU is the primary reason a frigate will survive running a gatecamp or any other encounter vs multiple ships. Again this applies most to gallente frigates.

5) I agree with your points here, however, if other CSM members were to push for a complete rework of ECM from the ground up, would you support it? What would you like to see ECM reworked as if this was the case?

6) I very much agree with this sentiment, that there should be more definition between the non amarr recons than there currently is. There should be consequences for being covert. Also, while on the topic of covert ships, what is your stance on covert interdiction nullified T3s? Should T3 ships be able to fit both of these subsystems at the same time?

7) I won't make a comment here as I don't really know much about capitals, having never flown one myself.

8) Agreed.

9) Very much agreed. I would love to see cruise missiles get some love.

10) Again, I won't say much, as the topiv of reworking lowsec is much unlike reworking a ship or a module, it is a massive entity in itself, and would require significant work and testing for any 'fix'. Being someone who prominently PvPs in low-sec, how high on your priority list would low-sec be?


And a couple of other questions for you;

Do you believe CCP should discourage 'blobbing', or is it a part of the game that everyone should accept and move on?

What is your stance on T3 links? Being a regular user of them yourself, do you believe they are overpowered? Should they remain stronger than command ship links?

What would you most like to see iterated over the next year?

Don't vote for me then. There's no need in making declarations on you never voting someone left and right, don't fool yourself by thinking your opinion is that important to public.

By all means, do it.

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about - Oscar Wilde

+1

The tree of this candidacy bears a strange fruit.

+1 wish dring more fun thing come.

I am sure that if Adolf were still around, he would too.

+1 wish you good luck, Fon!

your final chance to vote for an eve final solution!