These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Crackforbreakfast
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#621 - 2016-02-23 13:29:07 UTC
What seems to be forgotten by the salty gankbro's in this thread pulling up 2014 RFF statistics is that the ganks are mostly happening in a very select few systems, the Niarja and Uedama pipes with the surrounding few systems because these are connecting the major trade hubs to one another.

The statistics of RFF2014 also include ALL of the other contracts not travelling through those gank choke-points (I'm not sure if gankbro's are just playing dumb or really don't understand this).
Scouting will only help so much as the pipe consist of multiple jumps judging by the map, this means that a Mach could be waiting 3-4 jumps ahead while you get scanned down in the current system to see if you're worth ganking. This is furthermore hindered with the fact that Freighter warps are slow, multiple minutes on occasion, in that time a lot of relocating can be done by a Mach with it's warp speed increase bonus. Even if you have a webber, the fact you have to go multiple jumps through the pipe and can be caught up to means your webber can also be ganked.

What would be the solution gankbro's? Three scouts? Two webbers? So a total of six accounts to avoid 160mil worth of Catalysts that can kill you if they desire to do so while the risk free Machariel happily bumps you. Or would you need four Tornado accounts to alpha the Mach of the field to keep you safe?

Twisting the facts (or misinterpreting them purposefully would be a nicer wording) in regards to the safety of freighter pilots is not making you look like the sharpest tool in the shed so best to stop that.

My sincere apologies if you're not purposefully misinterpreting them and are actually not understanding how to read into them.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#622 - 2016-02-23 13:34:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters.

Well I have no doubt you mostly understand EvE, but that 100% just bugs me because I know it isn't really true. You can have an instawarping interceptor that might still get smartbombed, even in highsec if someone is ballsy enough to attempt it. You can have absurd amounts of tank, but if you've become the recipient of someone's personal vendetta that has vast amounts of resources to throw around, they can still find a way to get you at an undock, a gate, or what-have you.

It's just that your situational awareness (and I am speaking specifically about you) and your knowledge of the game mechanics and rules is probably top-notch. You would know not to autopilot, you would have insta-undock bookmarks, you wouldn't fit officer resist mods because you would know it would make you a gank target, etc. It's not that you're 100% safe, but you use everything at your disposal to keep yourself safe. And you'll probably never get ganked, and that's a good thing. But it's not that you're 100% safe, because so long as you're traveling between systems you are NOT perfectly safe, it's just that the threshold to make you unsafe is ridiculously high, so easier targets will be chosen instead.

Working as intended.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Mazare Mircea
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#623 - 2016-02-23 13:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mazare Mircea
baltec1 wrote:


You can avoid all risk of being ganked just by using a single web ship. Have you even worked out the maths of the number of people required to gank a jump freighter with a million EHP using t1 catalysts? This is exactly the sort of baseless opinion orientated feedback we do not need.

All risk ?
All of it ?
You mean you can get a freighter into warp in under 1s, before the server tick ?

Golly, them webs are so powerfull to have.

Or is it that you want to say 'most risk' but can only see your argument in this discussion ?


Quote:
Again let's keep personal opinions out of this and stick to facts. It is a fact that CCP took away effectively free battleships which no matter how you look at it is a big nerf evident enough by the simple fact that nobody ganks with battleships.

Now can we stick to the subject at hand? This isn't a bumping thread it's about changes to the DCU with the aim of making them less of a must have mod. As it stands the change does not make the mod any less needed than today and also breaks several ships in the process.

Ppl were using Battleships because they got used to their EHP and slot layout.
Had that nerf not come around, they would have switched to tier 3 battlecruisers eventually for a number of other factors.

The mod will in fact become less needed than it is now, as some ships that are in the extreme of shield or armor tanking might benefit more from other mods.

As for what it breaks, it breaks no other ships and if anything, goons have proved it.
If they can gank with t1 cats freighters in .9 and 1.0 with impunity, they can do so in .5/.6 ... it will just require a tad more 'effort'.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#624 - 2016-02-23 13:54:42 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
What seems to be forgotten by the salty gankbro's in this thread pulling up 2014 RFF statistics is that the ganks are mostly happening in a very select few systems, the Niarja and Uedama pipes with the surrounding few systems because these are connecting the major trade hubs to one another.

The statistics of RFF2014 also include ALL of the other contracts not travelling through those gank choke-points (I'm not sure if gankbro's are just playing dumb or really don't understand this).
Scouting will only help so much as the pipe consist of multiple jumps judging by the map, this means that a Mach could be waiting 3-4 jumps ahead while you get scanned down in the current system to see if you're worth ganking. This is furthermore hindered with the fact that Freighter warps are slow, multiple minutes on occasion, in that time a lot of relocating can be done by a Mach with it's warp speed increase bonus. Even if you have a webber, the fact you have to go multiple jumps through the pipe and can be caught up to means your webber can also be ganked.

What would be the solution gankbro's? Three scouts? Two webbers? So a total of six accounts to avoid 160mil worth of Catalysts that can kill you if they desire to do so while the risk free Machariel happily bumps you. Or would you need four Tornado accounts to alpha the Mach of the field to keep you safe?

Twisting the facts (or misinterpreting them purposefully would be a nicer wording) in regards to the safety of freighter pilots is not making you look like the sharpest tool in the shed so best to stop that.

My sincere apologies if you're not purposefully misinterpreting them and are actually not understanding how to read into them.


Both of those systems can be avoided or the risk in the reduced to virtually zero. All of my ships are bought in jita and pass through those systems and not once have I lost a shipment. Equally my industrial alt has never been ganked in said systems despite traveling through them twice a day, nearly every day. The reason RFF get use is because it is the single largest body of date available on freighter trips and the likelihood of failing a contract.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#625 - 2016-02-23 14:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Mazare Mircea wrote:

All risk ?
All of it ?
You mean you can get a freighter into warp in under 1s, before the server tick ?

Golly, them webs are so powerfull to have.

Or is it that you want to say 'most risk' but can only see your argument in this discussion ?


3-5 seconds to get a freighter into warp. I have had my freighter for 4 years now, yes it might as well be perfectly safe. Same goes for blockade runners, fly them right and nothing can stop them.


Quote:

Ppl were using Battleships because they got used to their EHP and slot layout.
Had that nerf not come around, they would have switched to tier 3 battlecruisers eventually for a number of other factors.
they were used for their firepower, concord kills all ships equally fast no matter the tank fitted. They also provided a profit because you could insure them for more than it cost the build them.

Quote:
The mod will in fact become less needed than it is now, as some ships that are in the extreme of shield or armor tanking might benefit more from other mods.


The mod will be 0.02% less effective than now, there will be no change.
Quote:

As for what it breaks, it breaks no other ships and if anything, goons have proved it.
If they can gank with t1 cats freighters in .9 and 1.0 with impunity, they can do so in .5/.6 ... it will just require a tad more 'effort'.


It was pointed out when freighters were balanced that allowing them to fit a DCU would overpower them because of the vast structure HP they have and the nature of bulkheads.
Crackforbreakfast
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#626 - 2016-02-23 14:47:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Both of those systems can be avoided or the risk in the reduced to virtually zero. All of my ships are bought in jita and pass through those systems and not once have I lost a shipment. Equally my industrial alt has never been ganked in said systems despite traveling through them twice a day, nearly every day. The reason RFF get use is because it is the single largest body of date available on freighter trips and the likelihood of failing a contract.


Both systems can not be avoided unless you're going through low-sec with your freighter, to get from Jita to Amarr you either have to go through Niarja, or go 40-ish jumps around and go through Uedama. ; see http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Amarr:-Niarja:-Uedama for reference, the same goes for Jita to Dodixie http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Dodixie:-Uedama:-Niarja, and thus also for Jita to Hek http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Hek:-Uedama:-Niarja.

Also the fact you're "using" RFF data does not mean you're capable of interpreting it right, which leads me to believe you actually don't understand the previously made argument as to how you (and others) are misinterpreting the statistics. How about using the most recent and best updated source you can find on where these freighters actually die, regardless of if they're RFF freighters or not; https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/. Hard to deny the trend much?
This does not include statistics on how many freighters pass through, but is merely to show that on these popular routes you WILL have to go through one of two systems, Niarja or Uedama, and at those points, have a fair chance of getting picked off.

The fact is the more interesting freighters (ISK-wise) during times of activity be ganking groups are being picked off. (logically)
However the current EHP of the freighters allows this to be done at such a low cost that the hull resistance buff will even it out a bit.
You'll still have your easy life in regards that there are only two pipes for these major hubs, just have to be a bit pickier on what you decide to blap by pressing F1. Instead of 160 mil worth of Catalysts you might need 240mil worth of Catalysts, or just up your game and only go for the juicy targets using Talos if fielding that amount of players seems unmanageable.
Mazare Mircea
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#627 - 2016-02-23 14:49:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mazare Mircea wrote:

All risk ?
All of it ?
You mean you can get a freighter into warp in under 1s, before the server tick ?

Golly, them webs are so powerfull to have.

Or is it that you want to say 'most risk' but can only see your argument in this discussion ?


3-5 seconds to get a freighter into warp. I have had my freighter for 4 years now, yes it might as well be perfectly safe. Same goes for blockade runners, fly them right and nothing can stop them.

I will not take the 3-5s, but i will admit it's probably around 6s with reactions and all that.

So it's not 'no risk at all', now is it ?


Quote:


The mod will be 0.02% less effective than now, there will be no change.

I said something different in that part of my post.
I was referencing the fact that some ships (i was not thinking of freighters) will see an increase in EHP and will avoid the absolute requirement of sacrificing a lowslot for a damage control.

Usually it's the ships with too few low slots (caldari are a prime example) or the ships with too many low slots (amarr will be able to fit more damage).


Quote:
It was pointed out when freighters were balanced that allowing them to fit a DCU would overpower them because of the vast structure HP they have and the nature of bulkheads.

That was then, this is now.

Balancing is not done completely around pen and paper, one has to consider the willingness of ppl to do something, that might not seem practical on pen and paper.
A prime example is ganking empty freighters/jf's/marauders, which is somethings that CODE/goons will do with glee.

The cost of the ships involved might not be made back in loot, but they will still do it for lols.

At the base of it all, if CCP is allowing the attachement of this built in damage control to hulls such as freighters, it is because of freighter ganking proliferation.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#628 - 2016-02-23 14:52:21 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Oh so you missed that part where I said you dscan with the scout. I feel like you missed that.
So what you are saying is that if you actively refuse to jump if there's a ship capable of bumping (which is a huge number of ships) within 14 AU of the gate and use a webber you are immune to ganking? Guess what, you're still wrong. The reason you are struggling to put your point across even though your are going to extreme lengths is because it's impossible to make a freighter ungankable (while still undocking it) at all, let alone limiting yourself to a single webber.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#629 - 2016-02-23 15:11:02 UTC
Crackforbreakfast wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Both of those systems can be avoided or the risk in the reduced to virtually zero. All of my ships are bought in jita and pass through those systems and not once have I lost a shipment. Equally my industrial alt has never been ganked in said systems despite traveling through them twice a day, nearly every day. The reason RFF get use is because it is the single largest body of date available on freighter trips and the likelihood of failing a contract.


Both systems can not be avoided unless you're going through low-sec with your freighter, to get from Jita to Amarr you either have to go through Niarja, or go 40-ish jumps around and go through Uedama. ; see http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Amarr:-Niarja:-Uedama for reference, the same goes for Jita to Dodixie http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Dodixie:-Uedama:-Niarja, and thus also for Jita to Hek http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Jita:Hek:-Uedama:-Niarja.

Also the fact you're "using" RFF data does not mean you're capable of interpreting it right, which leads me to believe you actually don't understand the previously made argument as to how you (and others) are misinterpreting the statistics. How about using the most recent and best updated source you can find on where these freighters actually die, regardless of if they're RFF freighters or not; https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/. Hard to deny the trend much?
This does not include statistics on how many freighters pass through, but is merely to show that on these popular routes you WILL have to go through one of two systems, Niarja or Uedama, and at those points, have a fair chance of getting picked off.

The fact is the more interesting freighters (ISK-wise) during times of activity be ganking groups are being picked off. (logically)
However the current EHP of the freighters allows this to be done at such a low cost that the hull resistance buff will even it out a bit.
You'll still have your easy life in regards that there are only two pipes for these major hubs, just have to be a bit pickier on what you decide to blap by pressing F1. Instead of 160 mil worth of Catalysts you might need 240mil worth of Catalysts, or just up your game and only go for the juicy targets using Talos if fielding that amount of players seems unmanageable.


Use a jump freighter.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#630 - 2016-02-23 15:18:44 UTC
I'll keep saying it until you get it.

Dumb != risk
Not taking preventative measures != risk.

At the end of the day, RFF stats demonstrates that a properly flown freighter is exceedingly hard to kill. That alone speaks volumes and is actual...you evidence as opposed to the chicken little screaming that gankers are everywhere all of the time.

I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#631 - 2016-02-23 15:19:55 UTC
Quote:

I will not take the 3-5s, but i will admit it's probably around 6s with reactions and all that.


It's 3-5 seconds depending how you are fitting you freighter. The only reason it's not 1 second is because you need to get the freighter up to 17.4m/s.


Quote:

I said something different in that part of my post.
I was referencing the fact that some ships (i was not thinking of freighters) will see an increase in EHP and will avoid the absolute requirement of sacrificing a lowslot for a damage control.

Usually it's the ships with too few low slots (caldari are a prime example) or the ships with too many low slots (amarr will be able to fit more damage).
If you fit a damage control now you will fit one after this change.

Quote:

That was then, this is now..


The only thing that has changed between then and now is hyper dunking was removed entirely. Literally the only change was a change that made freighters even safer. The reasons for not allowing a DCU on freighters are still there.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#632 - 2016-02-23 15:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'll keep saying it until you get it.

Dumb != risk
Not taking preventative measures != risk.

At the end of the day, RFF stats demonstrates that a properly flown freighter is exceedingly hard to kill. That alone speaks volumes and is actual...you evidence as opposed to the chicken little screaming that gankers are everywhere all of the time.
And I'll keep saying it until you get it. All RFF stats demonstrate is that they can make themselves less appealing to be chosen as a gank target than alternative targets. If they were the only targets they would lose most of the ships that gankers attempted to gank, since freighters cannot be immune to ganking. The absolute best they can hope for is they make themselves unappealing enough that someone else gets ganked in their place.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking.
No, you've not seen a single shred of data you accept. Any time anyone points out how incredibly cheap and easy it is to gank a freighter you whine on about it being the freighters fault thus the fact that it only costs you a hundred or two mil in ships to gank a capital ship is their fault not yours.

At the end of the day CCP are happy to push through this change and happy with you having to adapt to it. Get over it.

baltec1 wrote:
If you fit a damage control now you will fit one after this change.
I promise you 100% I won't.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#633 - 2016-02-23 15:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Lucas Kell wrote:

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I've still not seen a single shred of actual data from anyone which tells us ganking is OP and needed a nerf. Not one. The only data available, RFFs, shows us clearly that the profession is alive, well and suffering minimal losses, or which not even all can be attributed to ganking.
No, you've not seen a single shred of data you accept. Any time anyone points out how incredibly cheap and easy it is to gank a freighter you whine on about it being the freighters fault thus the fact that it only costs you a hundred or two mil in ships to gank a capital ship is their fault not yours.



That is not data, that is whining.

Get me some data that isn't whatever you burped up, but real actual data which shows us thank ganking needed another nerf.


I mean, your entire post is a massive oxymoron. "Ganking is so cheap, so easy. It's super lucrative" this of course explains why so few freighters actually die.

Don't you strain something with those mental gymnastics?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#634 - 2016-02-23 15:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Good job at skipping out on all the parts you can't possibly disagree with, like RFF data not showing what you claimed.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That is not data, that is whining.

Get me some data that isn't whatever you burped up, but real actual data which shows us thank ganking needed another nerf.
I did earlier. Conservatively putting a T1 catalyst at 400 dps, with a 25s gank window on a 1m EHP freighter, it costs 150-200m to gank the ship, and all but two of the pilots involved need to take the fleet warp, lock target and press F1. And note that would be a 7b isk capital ship you'd be ganking even without cargo.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I mean, your entire post is a massive oxymoron. "Ganking is so cheap, so easy. It's super lucrative" this of course explains why so few freighters actually die.
No, what explains why so freighters die is that few people actively perform ganking. I speculate that part of that is due to most EVE players liking a challenge and ganking being one of the least challenging mechanics in the game for the vast majority of players involved.

Besides which, I have nothing to prove. CCP are putting in this change to the DC, and they see no problem increasing freighter EHP. I too see no problem increasing freighter EHP, and understand that the biggest part of ganking a freighter is finding it and getting it bumped. Burning the EHP is a matter of F1 monkeys. You seem to be of the impression that buffing the EHP is a massive shift against ganking, and it's up to you to prove that, which let's face it, you can't because it's horseshit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#635 - 2016-02-23 15:52:53 UTC
Sorry you're still sperging garbage. Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever, you ridiculous fool. Stop it.

I said it's a nerf, all your hurf and bluster attempting to put words and lies in my mouth can't change the fact it's a nerf and one which has exactly zero data behind backing it up.

Still no evidence it required a nerf. Not that I expect any from you or anyone else. Which is prettttty telling.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#636 - 2016-02-23 16:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Quote:
I promise you 100% I won't.


Still waiting on those fits.
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#637 - 2016-02-23 16:15:51 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That is not data, that is whining.

Coming from the ganker side of the fence, that is a very funny statement.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#638 - 2016-02-23 16:29:40 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sorry you're still sperging garbage. Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever, you ridiculous fool. Stop it.

I said it's a nerf, all your hurf and bluster attempting to put words and lies in my mouth can't change the fact it's a nerf and one which has exactly zero data behind backing it up.

Still no evidence it required a nerf. Not that I expect any from you or anyone else. Which is prettttty telling.
LOL. OK, so what stats exactly do you want provided? As far as I scan see you want us to provided stats but will only accept stats that support your argument. We say "ganking is easy and cheap" and you are like "prove it" so I show you the math and you are like "doesn't count because cost means nothing".

At the end of the day we all know it's a minor nerf to ganking. We're OK with it, CCP are OK with it, you're the only group of people who aren't because you want to protect your easy playstyle, and the onus is on you to prove that it's a bad change.

Also, as for proof that freighters need a buff, how about them being by far the lowest EHP capital ships? You say "Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever", well neither has the ability to gank ships. Ship EHP isn't balanced based on their ability to be ganked, they are balanced on their function and their status in line with other ships. Where they are in the ship tree, they should easily be doubled in EHP in truth, so a little increase like this is perfectly fine.

baltec1 wrote:
Still waiting on those fits.
Opsec, vOv. Still waiting on you to prove that after this change 100% of the ships that used to have a DC still will. Basically if one dude (such as me) swaps out a single module on a single ship, you are wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
#639 - 2016-02-23 16:37:46 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You demonstrably can avoid all risk. The web alt jumps first. If you see a bumper on gate or on dscan and you jump anyway then hell mend you.

Dumb people != risk
And then you see no bumper, so you jump through, get instalock suicide pointed then the bumper arrives on grid in seconds.

Look, there's no such thing as being immune to ganking. The funny thing is, most people on your side of the fence used to cheer about how this was the case and how it should remain the case. Now they are going to make it marginally more costly, yest still incredibly viable to gank and all of a sudden that's not the case.


Contrived much? Lol Also bullshit, by the way, an interceptor can't even cover 15+ AU that fast, never mind a bumping machariel, which then needs to get up to speed and actually bump. Plus you could always, you know, web said impossible machariel even if it could land.

The people who die are those who do not take precautions, end of story. Careful pilots just don't die until they get complacent.





the bumper just have to be off grid and pre-aligned and fleeted with the sucide tackler or there is a ting called a cloaking device you may have heard of it. which is far less then 15+ au lol more like 600 km to 900 km depending on the grid this is called a tactical bookmark so simple to make. also not every machariel you see will be a bumper people mission in them people pvp in them people do incursions in them people doing incursions have to travel from old finish incursion to new incursions through the gank pipe and guess what they are gank targets too :P so u may be scared of someone who is even more scared of getting ganked then you are lol.

simple fact is there is no 100% guaranteed way to not be ganked and prolly never will be except for 1 NEVER UNDOCK! as many have stated ganking will only get marginaly more expensive and still be very viable and profitable just require a few more pilots and that will only be for when the target fits tank peopel will still go max cargo fits. gankers got their 15 k hp wrecks so for reals stop whining that it will take a few extra catalyst pilots to complete some of your ganks.
The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
#640 - 2016-02-23 16:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: The Ginger Sith
Lucas Kell wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
they will still never reach 100% safety.
In this post, Lucas Kell finally understands EvE
I've always understood EVE, though do not that while a freighter cannot achieve 100% safety, that doesn't mean 100% safety is always achievable. Most of my trade alts for example are 100% safe. Certain correctly fitted ships are 100% safe in highsec too, just not freighters.



only way to be 100% safe is to never undock an officer fit titan with max fleet boosts to tank can be ganked in high sec (if the situation was possible) even a 1.0 with enough numbers and bumpers holding it altho the system would require ccp to prolly dedicate 90% of all server resources + all test server resources to that 1 system to prevent a black hole from forming in the server room from the numbers that it would require lol.

the proof is in the burn jita and amarr events they gank even empty freighters and anything basicly that dares to fly that they can catch.

but for reals ganking is such a low risk/safe and profitable thing this wont change that it is about time a small marginal buff is thrown to the victims for a change. learn to adapt rather then complain.


Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sorry you're still sperging garbage. Using cost as a balancing factor hasn't been valid since forever, you ridiculous fool. Stop it.

I said it's a nerf, all your hurf and bluster attempting to put words and lies in my mouth can't change the fact it's a nerf and one which has exactly zero data behind backing it up.

Still no evidence it required a nerf. Not that I expect any from you or anyone else. Which is prettttty telling.



one mans nerf is another mans buff cry more this is a marginal buff to the safety of a low reward high risk job of hauling freight there is actualy no nerf here at all its called a rebalance that still heavly favours ganking.

the only actual nerf here is to all the ships that use dmg control may need to invest into faction or officer/deadspace DCU in order to get the 60% or better hull resists since the 40% from a t2 wont just be simple addition to the 33% static in other words it wont be 73% it will prolly be lower then the 60% we get now. this effects everything other then ganking in high sec since a dcu dont stop u from getting OMGWTFBBQ'd by concord in a single shot when ganking. rather then spewing useless rage hate harassment spam trying having a civilized argument.