These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#981 - 2016-03-11 00:17:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Seth Kanan wrote:
I disagree. Counterplay should not force a hauler to have multiple accounts.


And yet you demand gankers to use large fleets to attack a single ship. If haulers should not be asked to use multiple pilots to protect themselves then gankers should not need large fleet to attack them either.

I think this is a great idea, now all you need to do is get CCP to make it so a support fleet with a freighter can actually do something against bumpers and gankers in general, without having to resort to being as bad as them (ganking the bumper).

The game mechanics are already there for it, the server can tell when someone gets bumped and how hard, so why not make it a real mechanic so there can be an active, legal counter (aside from webbing the freighter off, which doesn't always work) to bumpers.

If a freighter pilot needs others with him (or multiple accounts) to counter bumpers, then there should be some risk for the bumper. CCP will never do this, the outcry from gankers would be endless.
Honestly, look how defensive Baltec is over the mere suggestion bumping be made a legitimate mechanic that has legitimate repercussions.

Just think, bait freighters in highsec flying around specifically looking for bumping machs to kill. Oh the tears from the self entitled!!!

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#982 - 2016-03-11 01:11:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I?


Your argument is that the 34% buff to your hull resists is enough to not fit a DCU on your PVE ship. So yea, name a pve ship that relys on a hull tank.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#983 - 2016-03-11 01:15:22 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I think this is a great idea, now all you need to do is get CCP to make it so a support fleet with a freighter can actually do something against bumpers and gankers in general, without having to resort to being as bad as them (ganking the bumper).


Logi.


Sgt Ocker wrote:

The game mechanics are already there for it, the server can tell when someone gets bumped and how hard, so why not make it a real mechanic so there can be an active, legal counter (aside from webbing the freighter off, which doesn't always work) to bumpers.

If a freighter pilot needs others with him (or multiple accounts) to counter bumpers, then there should be some risk for the bumper. CCP will never do this, the outcry from gankers would be endless.
Honestly, look how defensive Baltec is over the mere suggestion bumping be made a legitimate mechanic that has legitimate repercussions.

Just think, bait freighters in highsec flying around specifically looking for bumping machs to kill. Oh the tears from the self entitled!!!



Bump the bumpers, web the freighter, get a fast ship 150km out in front of a bumped freighter and warp to it. You have counters to bumping, not using them does not mean you should get more.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#984 - 2016-03-11 05:31:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I?
Your argument is that the 34% buff to your hull resists is enough to not fit a DCU on your PVE ship. So yea, name a pve ship that relys on a hull tank.
No it's not, again that's purely talking about not losing the emergency hull buffer by removing the DCU. You have some serious comprehension issues there buddy. Probably hard to read past all of your flailing though, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#985 - 2016-03-11 07:37:06 UTC
When will you realise the hull buffer has nothing to do with why they are fit, Hull tanking aside?

I cannot belive you are so hard of comprehension thus can only conclude that you are trolling.

Or perhaps sufficiently bad that you like sub-par fit ships.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#986 - 2016-03-11 07:41:09 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
When will you realise the hull buffer has nothing to do with why they are fit, Hull tanking aside?
Except they do. Not to you because you are only talking about fleet doctrines, but if you look at ALL ship fits, that's a pretty big reason they are fit.

At the end of the day, the change is out, CCP saw your crying and decided like most people that it was not useful. So get over it. People already have removed the DCU, so it's had at least some impact, so op success.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#987 - 2016-03-11 09:20:51 UTC
Because people misunderstand where the bulk of the buff that modules gives a ship comes from, doesn't make them authorities on the subject.

Dumb people might have removed the mod, but maybe we shouldn't balance them and their silly fits?

I mean, you're not even prepared to man up and post a single fit. I think the phrase is all mouth and no trousers.
Seth Kanan
Virgins of Santa Maria
SONS of BANE
#988 - 2016-03-11 10:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Seth Kanan
I think i will change my crow fit:

[Crow, Claire]

Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Medium Ancillary Shield Booster
Faint Epsilon Scoped Warp Scrambler
Warp Disruptor II

Rocket Launcher II
Rocket Launcher II
Rocket Launcher II
Rocket Launcher II

Small Processor Overclocking Unit II
Small Targeting System Subcontroller I

Mjolnir Rage Rocket x600
Mjolnir Javelin Rocket x600
Nova Rage Rocket x600
Nova Javelin Rocket x600
Navy Cap Booster 50 x18

Putting the DCU away will open up a lowslot and a rigslot and i can fit a tech2 scram. I will loose a littlebit of tank but will gain a lot of agility and speed with a second nano for example. Replacing the processor overcklocking with a tacklespeed rig maybe will let me tackle interceptors at the gate. I bet there are many more examples. But im still happy that the DCU is a good option to fit. People love that mod and use it often.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#989 - 2016-03-11 11:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
So that is quite a handy example.

If before the changes you dropped the DCU you'd have roughly 1933 ehp and 74 dps tank. Now you'll have 2117 and 74 tank.

With a DC that is 2739 & 85.


What I am trying to say is that if the fit can work acceptably without a DC today, it almost certainly could have done so before the changes. 184 EHP (the gap between pre and post patch) isn't going to make or break it when we consider the drop in active tank.

The DCU fit is still light years ahead in terms of EHP and active tank capability.

If that makes sense?


Sure, there will be the odd fit that gets away with it, but they almost certainly would have worked without it before.
Seth Kanan
Virgins of Santa Maria
SONS of BANE
#990 - 2016-03-11 11:52:20 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
So that is quite a handy example.

If before the changes you dropped the DCU you'd have roughly 1933 ehp and 74 dps tank. Now you'll have 2117 and 74 tank.

With a DC that is 2739 & 85.


What I am trying to say is that if the fit can work acceptably without a DC today, it almost certainly could have done so before the changes. 184 EHP (the gap between pre and post patch) isn't going to make or break it when we consider the drop in active tank.

The DCU fit is still light years ahead in terms of EHP and active tank capability.

If that makes sense?


Sure, there will be the odd fit that gets away with it, but they almost certainly would have worked without it before.



I think that is where you are wrong. Actually that 184 EHP broke it for me. This EHP shifts my decision from a rather tanky approach to a rather speedy approach.
Blitz Hacker
Bored Bastards
From Anoikis
#991 - 2016-03-11 12:18:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Blitz Hacker
My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha.
All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.

Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.

The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.

Back on topic..

The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type?
Bexol Regyri
Wrong Hole Deep Drilling Co.
#992 - 2016-03-11 16:33:21 UTC
As an indy miner at first I was excited about this change. but after just a couple days I have seen a 500% increase in AFK/Bot mining retrievers and other soft mining ship just crushing the Ice belts. This is hurting my bottom line as a miner that only runs one account.

since CCP has neutered the groups that try to stop bots and afk mining, I suggest they add more staff to help battle this scourge.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#993 - 2016-03-11 16:52:42 UTC
Bexol Regyri wrote:
As an indy miner at first I was excited about this change. but after just a couple days I have seen a 500% increase in AFK/Bot mining retrievers and other soft mining ship just crushing the Ice belts. This is hurting my bottom line as a miner that only runs one account.

since CCP has neutered the groups that try to stop bots and afk mining, I suggest they add more staff to help battle this scourge.
There are no groups that try to stop bots (except CCP) and AFK pilots have for the most part been unchanged. There's no reason people shouldn't still be able to gank retrievers other than them being too mad.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#994 - 2016-03-11 22:46:52 UTC
Blitz Hacker wrote:
My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha.
All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.

Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.

The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.

Back on topic..

The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type?


Never mind all those Machariel fleets. Or all those artillery Hurricane fleets. No one uses artillery.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#995 - 2016-03-12 00:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Blitz Hacker wrote:
My main concern is effects of Ehp inflation: more specifically (and bias) is Minmatar Artillery. It's already probably the least used turret group.. sporting the rock bottom lowest dps, even before reload time, worst tracking in game.. but .. you got the alpha.
All hull resists just got at 33% increase across the board, regardless of fit. It's turning modules that rely on alpha strike to 'do something' into something that is bordering on poor choice/un-useable.

Now I'm aware this is a 'small' buff to over all ehp .. and most would of probably fit a dcu, atleast meta one before the changes anyhow, but even industrial ships make it harder, the small arty got buffed when it was realized on release of the Svipul that that.. well sucked. and that was boosted a little.

The only practical use of Artillery atm is kite frigates (rails usually the better option) , or high-sec gank tornadoes.

Back on topic..

The over all EHP buff to modules/turrets that effects are (further) diminished by another rise in ehp, is this being considered or just brushed under the rug because it's a 'small nerf' to an already under represented/powered type?

Arty fits aren't about dps, they are about alpha which no other weapon system can match.

Arty machs, used right will alpha just about anything from an mwd cruiser, up to a carrier off the field.

The very slight ehp buff (if there even is one) just means you need 1 more arty fit ship in your fleet, not a big deal.

EDIT; What we don't need is more buffs to turrets and modules. There is enough power creep now.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#996 - 2016-03-12 01:13:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Bexol Regyri wrote:
As an indy miner at first I was excited about this change. but after just a couple days I have seen a 500% increase in AFK/Bot mining retrievers and other soft mining ship just crushing the Ice belts. This is hurting my bottom line as a miner that only runs one account.

since CCP has neutered the groups that try to stop bots and afk mining, I suggest they add more staff to help battle this scourge.
There are no groups that try to stop bots (except CCP) and AFK pilots have for the most part been unchanged. There's no reason people shouldn't still be able to gank retrievers other than them being too mad.


There is no longer any gain in ganking miners.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#997 - 2016-03-12 01:14:15 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

EDIT; What we don't need is more buffs to turrets and modules. There is enough power creep now.


We just got some power creep with this changeStraight
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#998 - 2016-03-12 01:17:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Since I didn't claim such a thing, why would I?
Your argument is that the 34% buff to your hull resists is enough to not fit a DCU on your PVE ship. So yea, name a pve ship that relys on a hull tank.
No it's not, again that's purely talking about not losing the emergency hull buffer by removing the DCU. You have some serious comprehension issues there buddy. Probably hard to read past all of your flailing though, right?


You are the one going on about a PVE ship not needing a DCU because of the change to the hull resists. You swapped to this argument when you were getting called out on pvp ships so lets have this pve ship.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#999 - 2016-03-12 03:38:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
There is no longer any gain in ganking miners.

baltec1 wrote:
You are the one going on about a PVE ship not needing a DCU because of the change to the hull resists. You swapped to this argument when you were getting called out on pvp ships so lets have this pve ship.

There's just too much salt in these posts now man. And no, as I have from the start, all I've stated is that some people definitely will choose not to us a DCU. You scream "NOONE WILL CHANGE!" is wrong, it's that simple. You're just saying it because yo're all mad. Well the change is done now buddy, so get over it or ragequit like a pro.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1000 - 2016-03-12 10:53:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
There is no longer any gain in ganking miners.

baltec1 wrote:
You are the one going on about a PVE ship not needing a DCU because of the change to the hull resists. You swapped to this argument when you were getting called out on pvp ships so lets have this pve ship.

There's just too much salt in these posts now man. And no, as I have from the start, all I've stated is that some people definitely will choose not to us a DCU. You scream "NOONE WILL CHANGE!" is wrong, it's that simple. You're just saying it because yo're all mad. Well the change is done now buddy, so get over it or ragequit like a pro.

With the way the changes are, who is likely to see a DCU that does exactly the same thing it did before the change as not necessary?

You shield tank - DCU still gives you the same benefit.
You armor tank - DCU still gives exactly the same benefit.
Even someone wanting to hull tank is far better off with 60% resists with a DCU than 33% without it.

Aside from change for the sake of it, I can't understand why CCP changed a module to do exactly the same thing it did previously.
Unless we are soon to get hull resist mods and decent reps, this change was nothing more than cosmetic.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.