My EVE

I, for one, also share your concern.

theres the problem is isk these days.its little and big ships are very expensive.at leasy i know i cant afford a 250m rokh hull

Give me some ships and I will make a vid in anything you want.

Damn, I'm really envy of those with main obstacle for PvP (aside from RL, ofc) being mere isk.

I'm personally driven off by crappy game mechanics and proliferation of boring cheap-ass ammo-wasters like Drakes etc.

The thing is, both plated blasterboats and lonely victims are utterly boring. There's literally no room to get mental challenge out of there.

I don't really have the time to do anything but run around like suicidal cannon fodder hence the frigs and infrequent play time these days.

Mechanics have changed, partly for the worse but it really does get worse the larger the ships you undock in (solo). Hence the proliferation of frig stuff. It has an immediacy, low cost, and you don't have to deal with ECM, logi and blob horseshit nearly as much.

So what im getting from the replies is..... EVE is too expensive now for big ships, the only thing you are going to see is frig / destroyer 1 vs 1 bullshit!


This royally sucks

I love this entitlement that you have, that people should make you the videos you wan't to see. For no reason other than because you want to see them.

Go make them yourself if you see such a void.

Also perhaps there is a lot of frig stuff because there is a surge of new video makers, and frigates are an attractive option for newer pvpers.

This doesn't all come down to one module. And it's way too early to say that this is some permanent thing.

But I agree ASB's have created a stale pvp environment to a certain extent.

Tier3s were a problem far before ASBs.
Canes and Drakes were OP before them.
Tengus, Angels, ECM, we know the list of broken stuff in this game.

While I agree in theory that new things would be great for the game to keep it lively and people thinking up the new counter, CCP must avoid power creep.
For a new module/ship to be used once introduced, it must be superior in some way, beyond some utterly niche situation.
Witness the new armour resist module, no one uses it because it's not good enough, even though it's a change/addition to the options and could have made people far more challenged by armour tankers. Meanwhile the ASB is used everywhere far beyond any intended 'sandbox' scope because it is overpowered.
EHP creep has been an issue for long enough. And the advantage of the speed of things like tier3 BCs plus the penalties of armour mods & rigs as well.

In order to create a space for new different things, nerfs are needed too else everything will simply remain just as good because nothing really changed, or creep faster/tougher/worse for those wanting to actually explode spaceships. I am of course assuming that balance needs to strongly consider the mythical same-hull-size 1v1 as a starting point. Thus most likely needed is EHP and speed/tackle nerfs to those that have too much that they distort the balance of fitting & flying tradeoffs.
A speed tank is meant to cost you EHP as well as DPS. Otherwise it's just a shield tank that doesn't care that it's a bit easier to hit as it just runs away to not die so who cares that you hit it for a few % more which it just regens for free. Giving up your lowslot DPS modules for a viable (ORLY) active armour tank is meant to be sane because having hard tackle would be a threat to (slightly) fast(er) ships. Not something to only be unlucky or be very stupid to be threatened by but then effectively ignored.

Perhaps non-injected ships can mwd too much? Once at safe range they can maintain it via pulsing for too long compared to slower ships such that they have no risk of losing the GTFO option?
For shields, fitting an injector would be a choice of EHP vs speed tank. For armour it would be chasing endurance vs harder tackle. Injected active tankers wouldn't be hit so hard by an increase in mwd penalties.
(Dual) ASBs would have a more pronounced tradeoff, nos and cap batteries would have more of a use.