Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

So you agree their actions make them safer.

I don't think it's been said here yet, and I've been waiting for it, but it still hasn't come up. So I'll say it.

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, because I think it's bad form. But good god, someone actually said this.



This is what I hear when he says that:
RFF are only able to have high survival rates by knowing how the game is played, being aware of their surroundings, using the in-game tools at their disposal, and flying smart. So of course, their survival rates can't be taken into account.

I have never in my time on these forums, seen a posting that so radically demonstrates that a person has no idea what game they're playing. This is EvE. We have forum signatures like "Delete the Weak", and "Beware the Falcon Punch". The entire idea is that you're supposed to play smart.

Lucas, the problem isn't that RFF has great survival rates, the problem is that everyone is careless, lazy, ignorant, or stupid.

There are instances where you can say an outlier doesn't matter statistically. Like say, if RFF were actually in Cahoots with the entire Blue Doughnut of Nullsec, and each freighter had a full escort service to and from it's destinations. Then you can point to two things which would invalidate their numbers. 1: They're radically outside the norm. And 2: They have tools or resources most people can't feasibly manage.

For the purposes of attempting to ignore their data, both conditions have to be met. If it's inside the norm, it doesn't matter because it's not an outlier. If they have and use the same resources everyone else has, then it's still an even playing field.

And that's the problem with Lucas trying to dismiss the data. There is no space wizardry at work at RFF, there is no CCP oversight of their ships, their ships do not fly with an Concord escort. They simply fly smart. That's it. They don't even do it as a group; as it's been pointed out that many are just individual pilots in NPC groups with a couple friends (or no friends at all, and they still manage).

Lucas' post is, by far, the clearest call for EvE to be the oft-mocked "Hello Kitty Online". In one simple post, he outright dismissed the foundational principles of EvE, of flying smart, and advocated that the standards should be lowered to meet the lowest common denominator. That game mechanics should revolve around protecting the weak, instead of letting them learn from their mistakes.

I jokingly said earlier in a post that "Lucas finally understands EvE!" Contrary to how it looked, it wasn't a personal attack against him, since at that point I held no personal views towards him. He just teed up a nice shot at himself with a statement about "100% safety", and I took the opportunity. But since he made that above statement I'm convinced he's playing the wrong game.

He stated that people playing the game well should be dismissed.

Any time he speaks up again and tries to make a case for anything in this game, that quote of his must be presented. Not by one person, not by a group of people, but every single person reading his post should remind him of the foul he committed in his post.

Lucas, word to the wise. If you want to debate the merits of freighter EHP by virtue of their relation to other similarly-sized ships, that's reasonable and I'm not harping on you for that. But if you want to debate on the rarity of their ganking, you cannot dismiss RFF data under these terms. If flying dumb and getting killed is a factor in nerfing something, then tomorrow morning everything is nerfed and all you have left is festival launchers. That's it.

There is zero evidence for this though. What we see is if you use the tools ccp have given us you can make yourself 99.9% safe. The stats are taken from the single largest freighter organisation in eve. Who else out there is a better choice?

All you have is supposition. And that is not evidence. I know you think it is evidence, but it isn't.

First, you have to provide evidence that everyone is going to play just like RFF.

No, baltec1 is looking at the evidence.

So that would be a no then, you don't have a better group to view.

Now that you dug a hole for yourself so deep not even jacks beanstalk can get you out lets get back to the original topic you tried to weasel out of. What ship that currently fits a DCU is going to want to not fit a DCU after this change given the DCU is going to be just as powerful as today.

Loads. You claim there are none, so prove it. Provide me with a list of every ship in the game, every fit and every use, and prove that not one of them benefits from losing a DC. At the end of the day, you;re the one making the wild claim that this has no effect, so you can't then demand I prove it, that burden is on you.

Don't have to, just need to look at the stats of the new mod.

After we take into account the 33% resists added to ships we can see that the new DCU II will get 12.5% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure. End result is... the same as we have now.

Don't have to, just need to look at the stats of the new mod.

After we take into account the 33% resists added to ships we can see that the new DCU II will get 12.5% to shields, 15% to armour and 40% to structure. End result is... the same as we have now.

you need to learn how the hull resist from a damage control is even applied i don't have the exact math but the 33% and the 40% will not add up to 73% it will prolly be under the current 60% we get now. One example is when a marauder uses a damage control with bastion you do not get 30% + 60% instead of 90% you get something closer to 72%. some ships for some tasks will in many cases be better offer swapping the DCU II out for something that the pilot was already considering anyway. sure a vast majority of ships will still be using the DCU with very little change except a slight decrease in their hull ehp since the shield/armor portion isnt changing.

Yes it is, its right ******* there in the OP. Go look, right now and you will see that mod as I just described in that list. I have even taken the time to show you what this change would mean for the ships that you fly.

Yes, but it's not "the same". The whole point is that the module does less and the ship naturally does some of it some the end result of a ship using the module is the same but the necessity to use the module is lessened. That would seem to be the case. You appear to believe that more should be taken from the module and added to the ship to make it less used, which is fair enough.

How about rather than foaming at the mouth you offer a suggestion on what you think would be suitable for achieving what they want to achieve.