Ships & Modules

How has the conversation morphed from me declaring my love for the Drake to 7 pages of Tengu crap? Seriously?

I suggest you all start chanting "Save the Drake!" and get with the program, or I shall have to visit each of you personally to administer some anal discipline with hot crumpets!

Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.

Don't misunderstand me, i'm not saying that ISK should always be levelled either. I said that there are two perspectives on balance and that there's an interplay there. Much like you have an interplay between "mechanics" and "license to kill". The difference is that ISK is rooted in something real, regardless if the market fluctuate. Whereas "license to kill" is an abstract concept and mainly just an expression of imbalance in general. The ISK-perspective is rooted in something. An equal (mechanical) ship that cost (out of tolerable difference; balance) more won't get used.

We can discuss production chains all day, but at the end of it - malbalanced ISK do not get used same as malbalanced ships. There may be trend in ISK, but there's also trend in mechanics (which is why i often try to separate that in balance discussions, when people want to buff around impopularity). This means i often look past trends wether it's ISK or ship.

You may not see ISK-imbalances within class, but you definately see it between class. Once again, my argument remain that is why you don't really see HAC. Either you consider it a problem that HAC and Tier 2 BC were too similar performance-wise, or you consider they are too different ISK-wise.

I don't subscribe to the idea that HACs were obsolete by other ships (prior to Crucible) as per Marshmallow's list. I don't quite agree with him there. HAC may not be good enough to warrant their price-difference, but the other ships on that list are not better. That's what lead us over to the HAC-discussion.



The problem here is that you are comparing the HAC to a BC in a very isolated situation. This is why i keep talking about scalability. When i make balance remarks i consider it's impact on all scales of the game. The scales i tend to use are (solo), (small), (medium) and (large). To define them i usually root them in the game, but don't deal with exacts (no fleet), (squad), (wing), (fleet).

The interesting bit of the Deimos to Myrm, or with HAC in general, is that once you grab a couple of them and start building a concept around them, with a well-rounded composition: then the HAC will begin to appeal. That goes for any ship, you need to find it's direct bonuses (or it's more implicit traits) and build around them to make them work.

This is where we stumble onto Lili Lu's favourite part of the discussion. Ships in EVE overall don't seem balanced to all scales at once. Doing that is a massive and extremely difficult undertaking. I think it's asking too much of our devs. As a result of that the discussion here fall into perspective again: what i do is look at full scale balance, and assume each scale may not be perfect, but averages stay tolerable. What other people do is look at the one particular scale that pertain to them.

This is why we have a polarization, because the leading perspectives are people in the "solo-camp" only looking at (solo), and people in the "fleet-camp" only looking at (fleet).

It's also why i'm getting long-toothed as you put it, it is likely because of these ego-centered perspectives and how they slue interaction. EVE is about interaction and scalability is about tying all scales together and make them meaningful in unison. Look at the Butterfly effect trailer it's solo -> small -> medium -> large: A healthy EVE assume scalability.

With scale connected, the playerbase will create more content. Simple as.


Today the Tier 3 BC hulls are 80m in Jita. The insurance input is roughly 20m and the return is 65m. The cost of the hull thus land at 15+20m = 35m. This is in days of mineral instability and BC popularity: hardly modifiers for my case. I assume the relative to drop over time.

Today the HAC hulls are 180m and insuring them is pointless, hence 5x as much.

Today the Tier 2 BC hulls are 40m. Last i looked (cluster just went down) their input was about 10m and their return about 30m. Landing them at 20m + fitting.

The Tier 3 BC have the (by CCP well-calculated) upside that the BS-weaponry provide another layer of cost-differentiation. They cost more minerals to build, so they will provide a balancing ISK-factor.

Still though, the Tier 3 BC, the way they were designed as glass-cannons, many of their other features are peripheral while their specialty is overblown. That means you can easily Tech I fit them for a in-comparatively much more appealing result, that also translate to a between-comparative disparity. In clear terms: a Tech I fit Tier 3 BC still obscure Tech II fit HAC. If we assume a no-ISK perspective and factor in ISK afterwards.

It means you can run a 40m cost-effect Tier 3 BC that blaster at point-range and snipe at warp-to.

I Tech II fit mine just like you of course.

With the theory done above, let's exemplify with the tired old Drake-discussion.

It's interesting because it involves all these theories:

1. scale: (solo), (small), (medium), (large).
2. no-isk: "mechanics" vs. "ISK balance" (or "mechanics" vs. "license to kill").

The relation of all those theories is what make the topic complex.


Compare the Drake to another BC and it's "imbalance" [popularity] is mainly just scale-perspective:

Anyone who argue the case that a Drake is imbalanced shun the perspectives of (solo), (small) and (medium).

Even in a (medium) gang [a wing] it's difficult raising enough damage to break a supported BC buffer. Hence those fights involve control more than your typical fleet-target scenario.

If you have 20 Drakes and 20 support (=medium) those Drakes will volley roughly 40k and DPS 10k. Myrms can easily tank more, so the projection-traits of the Drakes are not as pronounced. The Myrms won't have better projection-buffer but they can play to their strength as Myrms.

Enter large scale and that gang-gang balance will twist in favour of Drakes as the sheer projection-to-buffer pronounce.

The game direction lean toward large scale: hence, that drive popularity.


Compare the Drake within it's favourable scale and it's "imbalance" is mainly just an ISK-perspective:

If you look only at large scale from a no-ISK perspective: all other popular concepts in that scale beat Drakes: Maels, Baddons, Rokhs, AHAC, Tengus (Lol-kis), Tier 3 BC, Carriers, Dreads and Supers. Almost all of those concepts also root in the same appeal the Drake have when it comes to scale: they are all projection-buffer.

Black Legion's second-generation AHACs: the Bad-HACs (Zealots with Beams) is an amusing yet telling example.

If you factor in ISK however, you will see why Drakes still appeal since all other concepts there cost more - more than the double. That's why the Drakes remain immensely popular, you can throw them around without afterthought.

Large scale and ISK have a very powerful interplay. Cheap ships enable more ships, as more losses matter less.

The game direction lean toward: "accessability, more explosions" (as Soundwave have alluded), that drive popularity.

There is nothing special about the Drake apart from the fact that our direction is constantly making them better .

Better in the complex meta of these theories, i should add. Think about it: Crucible (Tier 3 BC) made Drake and Tengu better, as it impact smaller scale and other ships or classes (Myrm, HAC) more. Balance.


Alright guys, the home-stretch:

We've finally reached the end of the theory loop with the Tier 3 BC cost remarks. Essentially free ships and the meaning of losses or the wheels that turn the economy, as Liang dubbed it.

We've reached the Smedley example. It's not a question of his coalition providing SRP for the things he like. He like them (ego-centered) because the loss of them is meaningless. SRP is not magic, it's just alliance-income paying for insurance-relative and fitting (the "40m of the 180m Tier 3 BC"). It's an "irresponsible" perspective though, but of course "the Smed" noted it in private character, not as a professional. I'm not making a case against the guy, or Ytterbium, Soundwave, Fozzie or whoever. It says alot about our desgn trends though, the state of the game and it's balance.

I consider Soundwave's concept faulty. It doesn't assume more explosion. It assume concentrated explosion, but less.

I consider scale-balance leading to more explosion as there is more incentive to interact outside of peers or between scales (butterfly effect, emergence = EVE). This can be scale-balance on ships, but also things like targets or objectives. They are also subject to scale-concentration as all infrastructure objectives lean toward large scale (POS, BCU, TCU even POCO). Here's the long-tooth disconnect: what our designers do is not emergence, so for me it's not EVE.

Polarisation is also ineffective game-design as the riders on the solo-themepark (Amamake) will ask for lowsec-attention, while the fleet-park attendees will ask for sov-attention. Likewise WH ask for WH-attention. FW ask for FW-attention. Empire ask for empire-attention and NPC-null ask for their own attention. It's quite transparent with outbursts such as "who is the FW-representative on the CSM!? it's just nullsec people there, rabble rabble!". It's pandering to idiots, since we should interact and all benefit from any attention. SiS-perspectives do just that.

The best buff a Myrm can get is things like "ring-mining" that create scalable-emergent content. It's a paradox, but true.

Full circle, achieved?

Uhh ohh ... Someone hasn't used tech 3 against 3 times the size and dps on there fleet. Tech 3 isn't easy. To compete on the same level as a fleet using 3 times the size and dps means we shell out like 1.5bil on fitting and ship against scrubs with tier 3 bcs that have spent 160mil per ship. Then have to manipulate a fight to try and get on an even footing or half a chance so do use poor comments that you clearly have no idea about.

I have flown a lot of different BCs - while not the only one needing looked at, it is far from fine as is. Thankfully, CCP also recognizes this, which is why the whole tiercide program is happening in the first place.



Tinfoil hat much? Also, can I have your stuff?



If your tactics are as "smert" as your choice to insult a CCP Dev, that would probably explain your PvP difficulties more than anything.

Noisrevbus: as part of your large-scale discussion, something you didn't mention that the Drake is a ship you can get relatively low-SP pilots into and still be effective en masse.

it's not an assumption, it's mostly fact from our part of warfare where we are always going against the blob and due to us living in wormholes we are kinda forced to use tech 3 ships because doing it in bs's just won't cut it for logistic reasons so don't try to turn an argument over tech 3 use when we do it everyday against "le blob". If the bigger blob users used tech 3 then this arguement wouldn't come up.
Drakes take low sp on mass to use while tech 3's need alot more. Tech 3 for subs and t2 fitting it like 500mil but doesn't really do any better than hacs......a tech 3 fitted 1.5bil does better than a hac but a 1.5bil hac will also do better than a scrub fit tech 3.

Yo Ceph!

Most ships are available on relatively low skillpoints. Unless you want to Tech II fit your Tier 3 BC or BS their skilltime is quite similar. There are also other weapon systems that are "disjointed" like Missiles: Drones for example. Similarily to how most people train only HML, you can train only Sentries and have them functional on several hulls (Vexor, Myrm, Ishtar, Domi, Carriers). HML of course is similar to those disjointed systems and not as dependent upon Tech II ammo as medium Turrets, so i guess it could be argued either way. No matter how you approach it though, none of the ships take a considerable different amount of time to train though (we're looking at a couple of days of differentiation).

I don't disagree with you - what you say is definately a factor.

I'm just saying it applies to things like Sentry-Domies and Tech I BS turrets too. You could easily churn out Nagas, Oracles and Maelstroms similarily. Consider how a BS4 + L-Proj 4 Mael compare to an HML II + BC 4 or 5 Drake .

Cost is definately the dominant factor, along with roles (since Drakes are always quite useful together with Maels, as fire-support to take out small tackle [dictors] and the like). I guess most groups would be inclined to stick BS4/LT4 pilots in fire-support roles as long as those slots need to be filled in a fleet, even if they don't have BC5 either. Premier concepts tend to be treated that way anyway, as premier (even by beginner- and mass-friendly entities like the CFC). I guess you would know, and be more familiar with it than i am.

I'm mostly pointing out that it's a fallacy to assume that only you have access to Shiny Fleet and the blob is always in T1 fit **** fits. If the effectiveness is there, it won't be terribly long before they're flying it too.

-Liang

It's pretty universally true that someone with a clue is going to kill someone without a clue. This kind of phenomenon makes people say that T1 frigates are untouchable and unkillable.

-Liang