These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jaantrag
#1001 - 2016-03-12 11:03:30 UTC
Ganking is hard as it is as some say .. now even more against freighters .. as past couple weeks in uedama and other hotspots .. hitting the whales with no selecting .. playing the odds or so they say ... perhaps its best for the DCU change .. gankers need some change in eve .. perhaps go and lul around in null .. high sec is green for a reason ..

as seen the past weeks in uedama and other hotspots where prettu much any freighter thta went n there didint come thro the system .. gankers didint even think to see if its proffitable to hit or not .. well meybe they did .. but didint care .. that was proof that ganking was too easy .. just meybe cause u cant/dont want to field that many toons to take down a whale .. thats your problem ..


back to DCU .. strippped down quite a few of em from my ships .. some of my PVE ships didint use it before the buff.. so little extra tank is good on em ..

EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1002 - 2016-03-12 11:05:11 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
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.


The first post is stating a fact and the second is asking for evidence to back up your argument.

So as you have changed the arguemtn back to "I have ships will no longer fit the DCU" I will ask again, what ships will no longer fit the DCU.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1003 - 2016-03-12 11:10:19 UTC
Jaantrag wrote:
Ganking is hard as it is as some say .. now even more against freighters .. as past couple weeks in uedama and other hotspots .. hitting the whales with no selecting .. playing the odds or so they say ... perhaps its best for the DCU change .. gankers need some change in eve .. perhaps go and lul around in null .. high sec is green for a reason ..


Removing piracy from highsec is not a good thing.
Jaantrag wrote:

as seen the past weeks in uedama and other hotspots where prettu much any freighter thta went n there didint come thro the system .. gankers didint even think to see if its proffitable to hit or not .. well meybe they did .. but didint care .. that was proof that ganking was too easy .. just meybe cause u cant/dont want to field that many toons to take down a whale .. thats your problem ..


Thats just an outright lie, a tiny fraction of the freighter traffic through uedama were shot at.

Jaantrag wrote:

back to DCU .. strippped down quite a few of em from my ships ..


Which ships and fits?
Jaantrag
#1004 - 2016-03-12 11:56:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Removing piracy from highsec is not a good thing.


didint mean removeing it ... just the ones not cutting it thro meybe shouyld look another proffesions .. (dont tell anyone, but i occosionally gank in hs too) .. alts-online after all .. :)

baltec1 wrote:
Thats just an outright lie, a tiny fraction of the freighter traffic through uedama were shot at.


well meybe little over-exaggerated but the times i was in uedama ... not a single one got thro .. meybe i just play on rush-hour ..

baltec1 wrote:
Which ships and fits?


yeah well .. might aswell drop u my online times and announce when im flying them for easy target practice .. or so ..

but in general mainly armor tanked stuff that dont need the resist on shields and armor hardner instead of dcu will work lot better ..


u do know some armor incursion groups fly without dcu-s .. axtra hull if logi f-s up is always welcome there .

EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1005 - 2016-03-12 15:35:20 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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?
I imagine nobody, but if you can find a DCU that does the same thing as one pre-patch, you might want to report it to CCP as a bug, because last I checked the DCU does less and the ship does more.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.
Indeed, so if someone is looking for defensive power only, then the DCU is the best choice. This we have covered. Now what if they don't favour defense but have a minimum defensive criteria that the 33% resists take them over but 0% resists would have left them below?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1006 - 2016-03-12 15:40:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The first post is stating a fact and the second is asking for evidence to back up your argument.
No it's not, the first post is you making yet another wild claim based nowhere close to fact while the second is you misrepresenting my opinion. And the reason for both is because you're mad at the change.

baltec1 wrote:
So as you have changed the arguemtn back to "I have ships will no longer fit the DCU" I will ask again, what ships will no longer fit the DCU.
And as I said before I'm not getting into EFT warrior posts with you as you sit around telling me that for every ship the defense would be better with a DCU, since defense isn't the only metric by which I measure ship fits. You are claiming there is no difference, but it's a provable fact that the DCU itself does less now and the the ship has higher base resists, so we know that claim is false. No more needs to be proven, since you can't even make reasonable claims when arguing your points.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

FT Cold
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#1007 - 2016-03-12 17:44:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.


The first post is stating a fact and the second is asking for evidence to back up your argument.

So as you have changed the arguemtn back to "I have ships will no longer fit the DCU" I will ask again, what ships will no longer fit the DCU.


You can still turn a profit ganking miners today, but it has has never been about isk gain. Two catalysts fit for less than 2m a piece can still destroy retrievers, covetors, hulks and mackinaws, scoop the loot and turn a meager profit. The problem is, and always was, that the isk/hour for the effort required to hunt miners has never been worthwhile with more lucrative targets available that are easier to kill. Even when gank ships were insurable the isk/hour for the amount of work miner ganking takes was never worth mentioning. It has and will always be about getting a reaction, whether it's tears or changing the behavior of players.

As for the second point, there is no reason for a mission running ship to fit a DC, but it has been a relatively common practice for players to fit a DC on incursion running ships. It isn't strictly necessary, but some players make the judgement when they're using t2 fits or don't have links available and it isn't always about the extra shield and armor resists. Screw ups happen and the extra buffer isn't a bad way to ensure that your incursion battleship will have a little more time to sort problems out. Now, we have default hull resists, and as a result the DC is a less attractive module, something that if you're interested in suicide ganking blingy incursion ships, you should be happy about.

Also, I've previously outlined a number of situations about 30 pages back where it would be advantageous for players to drop the DC on their PVP fits. As I've said before, shield buffer and MASB fit frigates fighting AAR fit frigates, as well as a few scram kiters, gain more from additional DPS than they do from additional tank in addition to how the structure changes make these fits more viable. It was ignored then as I'm sure it will be again.

I don't think that the DC and structure changes were even meant to be a sweeping change to offset the large scale viability of the DC. The DC is one of the hallmarks of a PVP fit ship along with warp disruptors and scramblers and aside from a few cases, like those above, most PVP ships will continue to fit it, which isn't a bad thing. It's something that separates lvl4 or ratting battleships from PVP fits in a way that provides meaningful gameplay choices. For the rest of PVP fit ships, a few fits didn't use it before the changes and a handful more will drop it now, which to me, looks like the intended consequence.

You've painted a grim picture of freighter ganking but you've picked a subset of numbers that only supports your narrative about the hull changes. Yes, it is significantly more expensive to gank a max tanked obelisk or anshar, but on the low end, such as for a max capacity charon, the change in isk is relatively small. Before, under the best circumstances, a ganking group could destroy an expander fit charon with as few as 9 catalysts, and now, that number is 11, vs 25 for a max tank fit. To buy two max dps catas, thats it's about 25m isk, and maybe that's the change that CCP desires. A small impact on the low end and a big impact on the high end to balance the downsides and rewards of certain behaviors.

Given the low barrier to entry and potential lucrativeness, freighter ganking is not going to go away. A quick check of zkill confirms my statement. Yes, it's going to be harder in all cases, but on the low end, it won't be much harder, and for most groups, the structure change will be absorbed by the extra players already present on freighter killmails who aren't always there because they need to be to ensure the kill, but are there simply to participate.

It's time for people in this thread to get real about the DC and structure changes. The amount of inane bickering is a detriment to the game and is only going to alienate CCP from wanting to be inclusive to players in the dev cycle. Some of CCP's changes are reactive and at some point you've got to accept that it's their vision of the game that matters, and if they think that freighters are being ganked too often, or that it's too easy to gank them, or that the wreck HP changes need a counterbalance, then that is what is going to happen.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1008 - 2016-03-12 17:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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?
I imagine nobody, but if you can find a DCU that does the same thing as one pre-patch, you might want to report it to CCP as a bug, because last I checked the DCU does less and the ship does more.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.
Indeed, so if someone is looking for defensive power only, then the DCU is the best choice. This we have covered. Now what if they don't favour defense but have a minimum defensive criteria that the 33% resists take them over but 0% resists would have left them below?

Are you serious?
Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull
New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%.

What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before.

If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is?
It isn't just criteria for hull that comes in here, the DCU covers all 3 resists, 33% hull resist is all but useless if your other resist profiles aren't high enough to make up for it. Unless your ships have somehow gained more than 1 fitting slot by not using a dcu, it is still the best option. Aside from the odd niche armor fit where an extra adaptive will give you higher resists, in 1 of your three resist profiles.

No-one in their right mind is going to forgo a "best" resist profile for 33% hull resist. If they used a DCU before, they will still use it. You might be the odd one out who chooses not to but don't expect SRP and don't complain when the rest of the fleet ridicules you for being BAD.

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
#1009 - 2016-03-12 18:24:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No it's not, the first post is you making yet another wild claim based nowhere close to fact while the second is you misrepresenting my opinion. And the reason for both is because you're mad at the change.


Because of buffs you cannot turn a profit ganking barges anymore. There is nothing to gain from barge ganking so thats stating a fact.

The second is following the entire last page of your argument.


Lucas Kell wrote:
And as I said before I'm not getting into EFT warrior posts with you as you sit around telling me that for every ship the defense would be better with a DCU, since defense isn't the only metric by which I measure ship fits.


Losing 1/3 of your EHP makes one hell of a difference. There is little point is having a massivly fast ship that is equally fragile when it enters web range which it will have to if you are packing a scram. You engaged in an "EFT war" the moment yo made a claim you will be no longer fitting a DCU on ships you fly. So far all the evidence shows you are making **** up.


Lucas Kell wrote:

You are claiming there is no difference, but it's a provable fact that the DCU itself does less now and the the ship has higher base resists, so we know that claim is false. No more needs to be proven, since you can't even make reasonable claims when arguing your points.



There isn't any difference in the end result.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1010 - 2016-03-12 18:44:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Are you serious?
Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull
New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%.

What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before.
No, the DCU gives less resists, and combined with the boosted ship stats the same can be achieved. Consider this. What does removing the DCU now lose you compared to what removing the DCU lost you before? Oh look, it removes less hull resists.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is?
No, because a hull buffer is often used for evac. You know you can burn yourself down until your active tank fails then burn out, and you know that with the hull resists you'll get out on fire. Strip that resist to nothing and most ships have a paper hull tank and will get oneshotted. Unless you're dual tanking, one of those resist (armor/shield) won't matter so much either but if you had a shield ship with 0 armor resist you'd be rather weary of hitting armor too.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
No-one in their right mind is going to forgo a "best" resist profile for 33% hull resist. If they used a DCU before, they will still use it. You might be the odd one out who chooses not to but don't expect SRP and don't complain when the rest of the fleet ridicules you for being BAD.
See here you're talking about doctrine fits. They generally focus heavily on defense so I don't expect them to drop a DCU, but since they aren't the only fits in the game, that's not very relevant. You're still thinking at this under the preconception that the only reason they could possibly have fit it was the all round defense. There are plenty of people who would rather have another stat boosted by that extra lowslot but aren't willing to lose the "HELP HELP I'M ON FIRE" hull resists that save them when mistakes have been made. Now they don't have to.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1011 - 2016-03-12 18:52:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Because of buffs you cannot turn a profit ganking barges anymore. There is nothing to gain from barge ganking so thats stating a fact.
Shhhhh, you're getting silly now. The difference is negligible and the same gankers I've seen out duelbox ganking a week ago are still doing so today.

baltec1 wrote:
Losing 1/3 of your EHP makes one hell of a difference. There is little point is having a massivly fast ship that is equally fragile when it enters web range which it will have to if you are packing a scram. You engaged in an "EFT war" the moment yo made a claim you will be no longer fitting a DCU on ships you fly. So far all the evidence shows you are making **** up.
No I didn't, I specifically avoided an EFT war, because I couldn't give a flying **** how you would fit a ship. Any fit given to you is just going to end with you going "But if you fit a DCU you have more defense", and you'll probably be right, but since defense isn't the only stat on a ship I care about and oftentimes not even close to the most important one, it's a completely irrelevant point to make. Yet you'd still make it then just repeat it until the end of time because that's what you do, especially when you're super salty like this.

baltec1 wrote:
There isn't any difference in the end result.
But there certainly is a difference in the module. Imagine you have a torch in a completely dark room. Turn the torch off, you can't see. Then imagine they gave you a slightly dimmer torch but a low ambient light that makes up the difference. Now you turn the torch off and can still see a little. Suddenly turning the torch off to save on batteries isn't as bad. Sure, in some situations the ambient light might not be enough, and in some situations complete darkness is fine, but in some situations where you only needed the ambient light, that alone will do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1012 - 2016-03-12 23:02:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Are you serious?
Prior to the"new" DCU, you got 12.5 shield, 15% armor and 60% hull
New DCU is, 12.5% shield, 15% armor and 40% hull, with a 33% flat bonus to every ship hull resist is 60%.

What needs to be reported, CCP made a new DCU that gives the exact same resists it did before.
No, the DCU gives less resists, and combined with the boosted ship stats the same can be achieved. Consider this. What does removing the DCU now lose you compared to what removing the DCU lost you before? Oh look, it removes less hull resists.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
If they have a minimum defense criteria of 33% for hull (so don't use a DCU) they will also have 12.5% less shield and 15% less armor - Do you realize just how stupid your reasoning is?
No, because a hull buffer is often used for evac. You know you can burn yourself down until your active tank fails then burn out, and you know that with the hull resists you'll get out on fire. Strip that resist to nothing and most ships have a paper hull tank and will get oneshotted. Unless you're dual tanking, one of those resist (armor/shield) won't matter so much either but if you had a shield ship with 0 armor resist you'd be rather weary of hitting armor too.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
No-one in their right mind is going to forgo a "best" resist profile for 33% hull resist. If they used a DCU before, they will still use it. You might be the odd one out who chooses not to but don't expect SRP and don't complain when the rest of the fleet ridicules you for being BAD.
See here you're talking about doctrine fits. They generally focus heavily on defense so I don't expect them to drop a DCU, but since they aren't the only fits in the game, that's not very relevant. You're still thinking at this under the preconception that the only reason they could possibly have fit it was the all round defense. There are plenty of people who would rather have another stat boosted by that extra lowslot but aren't willing to lose the "HELP HELP I'M ON FIRE" hull resists that save them when mistakes have been made. Now they don't have to.

Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU
Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active.



There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them.
One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread.

Too much commitment to your ideas?

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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1013 - 2016-03-12 23:22:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU
Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active.

There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them.
One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread.
And you're fixated on PvP ships.

Look mate, it's simple. Do you seriously believe that not one player has or will remove a DCU following this change? If the answer is yes, then there's not much to do but laugh at you since we know for a fact that is false as people including myself already have. If the answer is no, then why the hell are you still arguing about it?

I have no interest in flying out to have some one on one so you can prove how much better you are at combat than an industrialist. Seems like a pointless waste of my time when you are so obviously wrong anyway.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1014 - 2016-03-13 09:30:14 UTC
Here I thought Lucas Kell was an expert on ganking, turns out he's just a whiny industrialist. Color me surprised.

CCP, go look at what freighters are being used and how they are fit, compared to before you announced this change. You'll find that you nerfed ganking massively.

We're not talking about using ~a little more dps~.
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1015 - 2016-03-13 09:38:58 UTC
Wardecs are now killing more freighters than ganking by a huge margin, please nerf wardecs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1016 - 2016-03-13 10:19:40 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
Shhhhh, you're getting silly now. The difference is negligible and the same gankers I've seen out duelbox ganking a week ago are still doing so today.


That change happened years ago, way to go paying attention.

baltec1 wrote:

No I didn't, I specifically avoided an EFT war, because I couldn't give a flying **** how you would fit a ship. Any fit given to you is just going to end with you going "But if you fit a DCU you have more defense", and you'll probably be right, but since defense isn't the only stat on a ship I care about and oftentimes not even close to the most important one, it's a completely irrelevant point to make. Yet you'd still make it then just repeat it until the end of time because that's what you do, especially when you're super salty like this.


There is nothing salty about pointing out you are making this all up. You wont engage with me because these ships you keep on insisting you have that wont fit a DCU now don't exist.



baltec1 wrote:
But there certainly is a difference in the module. .


There really isn't. They didn't nerf the two resits that matter and by baking part of the structure resists into the hull its giving the exact same end result. Even if you go with a hull tank you still want to fit a DCU. It doesn't matter about the mod because it will always get you the same end result as you had before.
Jaantrag
#1017 - 2016-03-13 10:52:31 UTC
this topic getting silly lol .. as stated before THERE is a Difrence in the module .. just cause the end result useing the module is the same dosent mean nohting changed ..

u guys do know not everyone go for the Tank fits with DCU-s .. extra resists without one gives a better then nohting buffer in there .. and might give an extra slot for damage mod or so to actualy make it so u might not even need the hull buffer .. get your head out of the tiny box u live in ...

EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1018 - 2016-03-13 11:15:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
That change happened years ago, way to go paying attention.
And yet gankers are still ganking miners, so you're confirmed to be crying over nothing.

baltec1 wrote:
There is nothing salty about pointing out you are making this all up.
Except you're not pointing out anything, you're making up obviously false claims because you're salty as **** that they made a change you don't like. Now you're whining on about old changes too. Why are you even playing this game? Sounds like you hate it.

baltec1 wrote:
There really isn't.
Except there is. Look at the numbers. Claiming there isn't is obviously false.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1019 - 2016-03-13 21:18:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Go and really read this, then open the game and look at the attributes of a T2 DCU
Your fixated on hull resist, when without something to boost it is not worth spit. A paltry 33% hull resist is not going to make any difference to whether your active armor tank is done and you have more chance to survive - By the time you start to burn out of point range the damage from someone hitting your active armor tank has bled through to hull and your more than likely already dead, the server tick just hasn't caught up yet. Unless you start your escape really early of course, then the 33% may save you, as long as your reps are still active.

There is one sure way to prove your unhinged theory, fit a ship out as you suggest you would (No DCU) send me an evemail as to what ship type you choose, I'll fit the same ship with a DCU and we can meet up and test them.
One on One somewhere we aren't likely to be disturbed and we can both post the results here later. Any ship you like, up to and including a carrier or dread.
And you're fixated on PvP ships.

Look mate, it's simple. Do you seriously believe that not one player has or will remove a DCU following this change? If the answer is yes, then there's not much to do but laugh at you since we know for a fact that is false as people including myself already have. If the answer is no, then why the hell are you still arguing about it?

I have no interest in flying out to have some one on one so you can prove how much better you are at combat than an industrialist. Seems like a pointless waste of my time when you are so obviously wrong anyway.

Seriously, you are deranged.
Did you even look at my killboard, do you know how I generate isk?
Looking at EFT and saying, this ship that has always used a DCU might be better without one now - Is not smart Eve.


And Lucas, I don't for one second believe ANYONE (even you if you were honest) would remove a DCU used on a ship previously due to this change.

IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, except the miniscule amount of cap they used to consume.

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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1020 - 2016-03-13 21:40:40 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Seriously, you are deranged.
Personal attacks show a weakness of character. Get better arguments and you won't need to resort to them.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Did you even look at my killboard, do you know how I generate isk?
Nope, don't even remotely care since it's irrelevant to the impact DCUs have.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Looking at EFT and saying, this ship that has always used a DCU might be better without one now - Is not smart Eve.
Depends on the ship, fit and priorities of the user.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
And Lucas, I don't for one second believe ANYONE (even you if you were honest) would remove a DCU used on a ship previously due to this change.
Whether you believe it or not doesn't change that it happened.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, except the miniscule amount of cap they used to consume.
It did though, that's an undeniable fact, just look at what stats the DCU adds pre and post patch.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.