These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting

First post First post
Author
Vraygan
#861 - 2016-09-01 03:05:56 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
Vraygan wrote:
On Rorqual, make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby.

Please elaborate on why you would like your Rorqual to lose the ability to Cyno in support ships to defend it.

Gladly. Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off.

Vald Tegor wrote:

Vraygan wrote:
If and/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble for ships not in the fleet?

In other words, passively bubble all the other miners around who do not wish to be subjected to you hitting your PANIC button at a terrible time?

Good point. Only interdicts non-Industrials. Haulers and miners warp unhindered, but others stop at edge to give miners extra time to warp away. Turn it off to let help warp right to you.

Vald Tegor wrote:

A fleet of invulnerable skiffs doing 300+ dps each, man you're on a roll. Are you sure that's safe enough for you? Why don't we just make the Rorqual an invulnerable Citadel while sieged and tether all the barges while they mine.

Make the Rorqual an invulnerable Citadel? You're the one on a roll. ;)
You don't seem to realize that you are accidentally agreeing with me by saying a Rorqual Skiff fleet would not be scary for you. #TrollFail
Vraygan
#862 - 2016-09-01 03:27:16 UTC
Johnno Ormand wrote:
If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this.

Your two miners mine to PLEX your accounts, right? If so , you dropping them saves CCP because it is less bandwidth used and marginally increases PLEX's worth due to it being connected to mineral cost/supply.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#863 - 2016-09-01 03:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
So, unless my math is wrong, the boosts from the orca have been nerfed by roughly 16%?
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#864 - 2016-09-01 04:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Vald Tegor
Vraygan wrote:
Gladly. Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off.

So you want it to inhibit Covert Cynos as well. Something no other cyno inhibiting mechanic in the game affects and for good reason. To what range exactly? Might as well be system wide so they can't cyno off grid and warp to you before you cycle down, right?

Then you want to cut the cycle time down to 1 minute. A mining link burst from a Rorq lasts 2min 20s. So in addition to a free cyno jammer, since you didn't think there might be a downside, you want to be able to siege for 60s, burst, siege off and coast the bonused effect for a minute and a half, effectively being out of siege ready to jump out more than half the time.

For those paying attention, that means you can cycle down your siege for over a minute every five as it is. You just have to actually do things with the rorqual pilot other than restock heavy water in a tower every so often.

Vraygan wrote:
Good point. Only interdicts non-Industrials. Haulers and miners warp unhindered, but others stop at edge to give miners extra time to warp away. Turn it off to let help warp right to you.

So code special magic bubbles that work nothing like other bubbles in the game, so they only screw over ratters that come help with rats outside drone control range and other friendly pvp ships coming to help. Because anchoring a bubble yourself if when and where you want it is so hard in the first place. Also, we all want to see something as game changing as bubbles in low security space right? That's the right way to go, because you want to deploy a capital ship without adequate support safely.

Vraygan wrote:
You don't seem to realize that you are accidentally agreeing with me by saying a Rorqual Skiff fleet would not be scary for you. #TrollFail

You are literally asking for the equivalent of sitting in a POS shield and shooting the attackers while invulnerable, and you say I am the one trolling...

The skiffs dps is a deterrent to someone who sees what is on grid and knows they don't have enough for a favorable trade. They go away, unless they're dumb. The ones who light a cyno anyway obviously brought enough. It's the support you have available to counter drop that takes care of that. But you can't plan that far ahead (or you wouldn't have the cyno inhibitor idea problem above) and instead want sweeping changes to game mechanics all so you can deploy a capital ship safely. Yeah, I am totally agreeing with you Roll
jumama
Underemployed INC
#865 - 2016-09-01 04:02:27 UTC
This dumbs down ganking quite a bit.

Say I'm in an orca, boosting a mining fleet.

With the current range limitations, I have to be dead center in order to boost my fleet that is spread through the asteroid field.
Dead center is next to the default warp in spot.
7ish years ago, we used to mark an asteroid on the end. Warp to it and travel at extreme low speed across the field, skimming some, gobbling others... True Strip Mining may see its' return.

Now, lets move to wormhole space.
Oh... I can only boost 2 asteroids at a time with the current range limitations, if I'm lucky and the 2 asteroids are close to each other.
Commonly, asteroids in WH fields are 30 to 50, or more apart.
It amounts to a lot of tedious moving for slow ships, that will be even more clumsy without the passive command agility bonus.

Given that it is more efficient/productive for me to hop in a barge/exhumer and simply mine, rather than boost, if there is less than 4 to boost...
And also given that 4+ miners and a boost ship... all within Smartbomb range will breed a new style of ganking... the AE Smartbomb gank maneuver, where a handful of gankers pack their resists to their own smartbombs (which they have loaded in every high slot available) in order to survive for as many pulses as they can before blowing each other, and the entire mining fleet like a cheerleader on prom night.

If the passive Mining Yield boost poofs... I'm going to take my ships off the markets, learn to fly them, and then just blow stuff up for a year.

/retire boost ship ... eat 2 million SP loss from Extractor/Injector inefficiencies... train combat stuff... blow stuff up, instead of producing anything, like everyone else. Then the marketing experts run out of stuff to sell... then pilots have to start making their own ships... then the system rebalances itself... = See ya next year when the balance has been restored to the force.

In short, the range thing blows monkey balls.


Also... the burst thing seems like it's going to cause major lag issues. Zillions of extra Timers counting down...
Especially if ALL bursts trigger timers... i.e. getting hit with a max skill level boost, then getting hit with a lower skill level boost gives you 2 separate timers... one for the max boost and one for the low skill boost.

1,000,000 isk says that places like Jita trigger crashes that lead to a series of emergency rollbacks/downtime days.
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#866 - 2016-09-01 04:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vald Tegor
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:

  • Will command ships receive a bay bonus or get a special bay for the ammunition?
No, the ammo volume will be low enough that such a bay wouldn't really be worthwhile.


I think people don't expect it to be needed the way a fuel bay on a black ops is. But I think you have people worried with the ice product bit in the blog. I know it made me instantly think of running two to three T2 Entosis links and having 200+m3 of rainbow flavored stront in my cargo.

When looking at the volume of the scripts, please keep in mind these ships are likely to be carrying a lot of things in cargo as is. Cap charges instantly come to mind. Mobile depot and alternate link modules (60m3 + ammo each) in case a particular kind of booster is eliminated and a surviving redundancy needs to refit to fill the hole. These are likely to be the individuals who bring bubbles to anchor. It would need to be near zero volume, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing either.

Command destroyers having battlecruiser sized cargo capacity doesn't foreshadow a negligible size.
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#867 - 2016-09-01 04:59:39 UTC
jumama wrote:

Oh... I can only boost 2 asteroids at a time with the current range limitations, if I'm lucky and the 2 asteroids are close to each other.
Commonly, asteroids in WH fields are 30 to 50, or more apart.


You are boosting the mining ships, not the asteroids...

A wing command 4 Orca will provide bonuses to Mining Ships out to 35km. That's 35km <- that way AND -> that way. A 70 km diameter. You will further boost the mining range of those barges by 80.86%, allowing them to reach out to 27 km.

Your orca allows for mining of anything within 62 km. Across a 124km span. And that's with WC4, not even perfect boosts.

Vraygan
#868 - 2016-09-01 06:24:52 UTC
Vald Tegor, I'm sorry you're unable to tell the difference between a suggestion and a detailed proposal. My statements were suggestions. In case you don't know, suggestions are proposed to address part of a problem (independently), while detailed proposals are logical constructs where all parts of it are linked and can be picked apart in the way you have naively done.
Well, that or you're willingly constructing a fallacious straw-man argument. Either way, it shows why your posts shouldn't be taken seriously.

Vald Tegor wrote:

So you want it to inhibit Covert Cynos as well. Something no other cyno inhibiting mechanic in the game affects and for good reason. To what range exactly? Might as well be system wide so they can't cyno off grid and warp to you before you cycle down, right?
Then you want to cut the cycle time down to 1 minute. A mining link burst from a Rorq lasts 2min 20s. So in addition to a free cyno jammer, since you didn't think there might be a downside, you want to be able to siege for 60s, burst, siege off and coast the bonused effect for a minute and a half, effectively being out of siege ready to jump out more than half the time.

For those paying attention, that means you can cycle down your siege for over a minute every five as it is. You just have to actually do things with the rorqual pilot other than restock heavy water in a tower every so often.

Actually I said "and/or". So you ignored the "or" in so that you could attack me for asking for "GodMode" miners. Again, it is a suggestion where the developers can choose. On the plus side, Vald, you did succeed in making one non-fallacious argument there. I should have said "or".
Oh, about the siege cycle time... I never said that Industrial Core cycle time should be different than its siege time. You made that part up, or you're lacking in reading comprehension skills. Unlike you, I've committed some brainpower to figuring out the core point you're trying to make, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You're right, that would be a bad idea. Good job arguing against a bad idea you came up with! Way to go! You deserve a Gold Star!
No, the Siege time (debuff effect) could actually be different and longer than the cycle (module timer) and Industrial Core (buff effect) time. You see, those are 3 separate mechanics that I'm suggesting for developers to consider individually...

Vald Tegor wrote:

So code special magic bubbles that work nothing like other bubbles in the game, so they only screw over ratters that come help with rats outside drone control range and other friendly pvp ships coming to help. Because anchoring a bubble yourself if when and where you want it is so hard in the first place. Also, we all want to see something as game changing as bubbles in low security space right? That's the right way to go, because you want to deploy a capital ship without adequate support safely.

It wouldn't be often that a Rorqual's fighters and flights of drones from maybe 5 exhumers would need help taking down rats, especially in low-sec. But, let's think further on what you said. If you think that would be a "special magic bubble", then to you ALL bubbles are "special magic bubbles" because interceptors can warp right through them. Oops, LOL! But lets look at what you say after that. Please tell me how "game changing" it would be if a 2Bil ISK Rorqual could place a bubble ONLY in the belt mining anomalies it is in? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I originally said the Rorqual modules should have to target an asteroid to prevent that specific thing from happening... That or you think that bubbles in low-sec belts can be used offensively. Well, I guess someone could use the Rorqual as risky bait.


Vald Tegor wrote:

You are literally asking for the equivalent of sitting in a POS shield and shooting the attackers while invulnerable, and you say I am the one trolling...

The skiffs dps is a deterrent to someone who sees what is on grid and knows they don't have enough for a favorable trade. They go away, unless they're dumb. The ones who light a cyno anyway obviously brought enough. It's the support you have available to counter drop that takes care of that. But you can't plan that far ahead (or you wouldn't have the cyno inhibitor idea problem above) and instead want sweeping changes to game mechanics all so you can deploy a capital ship safely. Yeah, I am totally agreeing with you Roll

Wait, you keep going back and forth on whether miners are formidable in combat... So we can agree that attackers would judge the situation and make sure they brought enough firepower. The miners are invulnerable for a time, but the drones attacking the enemies are not. The attackers can easily judge that how many drones a mining fleet could put out and bring enough support to tank and kill the drones. You've just disproven yourself again. It just raises the commitment required of invaders when trying to take out a 2Bil capital ship.
No cyno would mean the attackers would have to enter system via gate or WH. 2B ship gives more time to escape.
Bubble would mean the attackers would have to MWD before lighting a cyno. 2B ship gives more time to escape.

FYI: Khan Academy offers free classes on critical thinking. I think you could get a lot of of that.
Nevim Otazky
Perkone
Caldari State
#869 - 2016-09-01 08:07:31 UTC
Way to go CCP! It's a new mechanic I'm really looking forward to.


Sir Constantin wrote:
For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".




This is a good question. Any thoughts on this? Would you consider it part of the emergent gameplay?

No time for this

Nevim Otazky
Perkone
Caldari State
#870 - 2016-09-01 08:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevim Otazky
About the range:

Johnny Galnetty wrote:
If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.

This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW.




It says the base is 15km + (30% from Leadership 5 + 25% from WC + 20% FC) = 26.6km

If it sounds short, I think the intent is for multiple command ships / command dessies to be on field instead of the current single booster for the entire fleet.

You can have your tackle/EW get a quick boost from a command dessie before going off to tackle.

I'd imagine there will be a command ship boosting DPS and then a dedicated one for Logi (with a long range whore gun for the KMs :P)

Command ships and command dessies will be micro-jumping all over the field to give boosts.

I like the idea. Looking forward!

No time for this

Ded Akara
Doomheim
#871 - 2016-09-01 08:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ded Akara
Is the mining bonus from mining links being increased? Something written in the OP suggested it will be, but it was not clear to me.

Currently the orca gets a max mining cycle time reduction of around 32% with mining mindlink and max skills. Is this max being increased, and to what?

Also, by my calculations the max range on orca mining boosts will now be 43km. Bumping their orca away from the belt; I wonder if the devs considered that this will happen? The threat of ganking may also keep some from warping their booster to the belt entirely.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#872 - 2016-09-01 09:33:28 UTC
I have questions concerning recloaking after boosting. Any word on that?
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#873 - 2016-09-01 10:00:19 UTC
Vraygan wrote:

Actually I said "and/or". So you ignored the "or" in so that you could attack me for asking for "GodMode" miners.

You suggested:
"make Industrial core module prevent cyno fields from being activated nearby. And/or it could create a large warp disruption bubble"

To which I replied "why you would like your Rorqual to lose the ability to Cyno in support ships to defend it"

You replied with
"Shorten Industrial Core cycle time. Then you can deter unwelcome BLOPS and allow help by turning it off."

You suggested it Cyno Jam AND affect covert cyno AND reduce cycle time.

I do apologize for quantifying the cycle time to one minute. I must have mixed your post up with another i read at the time on that matter.

I don't need to "Build strawmen to attack you for wanting god mode miners". I'm not attacking you, merely leading you into realizing why your suggestions are ill conceived. You did that to yourself when you unironically "suggested" that invincible ships should be allowed to apply damage. Perhaps you don't remember the days when drones used to be able to attack while the ships that launched them were sitting safely in a POS bubble. I do. That was actually a thing!

Vraygan wrote:
Oh, about the siege cycle time... I never said that Industrial Core cycle time should be different than its siege time. You made that part up, or you're lacking in reading comprehension skills. Unlike you, I've committed some brainpower to figuring out the core point you're trying to make, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You're right, that would be a bad idea. Good job arguing against a bad idea you came up with! Way to go! You deserve a Gold Star!
No, the Siege time (debuff effect) could actually be different and longer than the cycle (module timer) and Industrial Core (buff effect) time. You see, those are 3 separate mechanics that I'm suggesting for developers to consider individually...

All siege/triage/bastion modules go on and off, with duration of positive and negative effects tied to that cycle. You suggest shorter cycle. I assume it affects the entire siege mechanic in my reply. You then

- Say I came up with the idea of them being separate things
- Agree it's a BAD IDEA!
- Suggest the devs actually make it 3 separate things in the next sentence

And I'm the one building strawmen...

Vraygan wrote:

It wouldn't be often that a Rorqual's fighters and flights of drones from maybe 5 exhumers would need help taking down rats, especially in low-sec. But, let's think further on what you said. If you think that would be a "special magic bubble", then to you ALL bubbles are "special magic bubbles" because interceptors can warp right through them. Oops, LOL! But lets look at what you say after that. Please tell me how "game changing" it would be if a 2Bil ISK Rorqual could place a bubble ONLY in the belt mining anomalies it is in? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I originally said the Rorqual modules should have to target an asteroid to prevent that specific thing from happening... That or you think that bubbles in low-sec belts can be used offensively. Well, I guess someone could use the Rorqual as risky bait.

It is not at all uncommon, especially for Gurista rats (and sleepers if i recall, been out of W-space a while), to have battleships orbit as far as 90km. Your drones have a 60km (if you maxed the skills) control range. Or do you plan on fitting two drone link augmentors instead of strip miners on those barges? No, you call one of the ratters in the standing fleet to clear them out.

Bubbles are bubbles. They all function the same way! What we have are ships that are immune to the effects of bubbles, which is a very different thing from a bubble that specifically affects some ship types and not others. You can say I put words in your mouth again, but I don't believe you were honestly suggesting that all mining and hauling ships should be completely immune to all bubbles like interceptors are.

Low sec is a very special place. It is hard to lose a pod there if you know what you are doing. As a result, some people run around with implants that cost far more than your Rorq. Would someone troll bait with a rorq bubble? Yeah. Bet on it.

Vraygan wrote:
Wait, you keep going back and forth on whether miners are formidable in combat... So we can agree that attackers would judge the situation and make sure they brought enough firepower.
No cyno would mean the attackers would have to enter system via gate or WH.
Bubble would mean the attackers would have to MWD before lighting a cyno.

No I'm not. I thought I was pretty clear. Should a mining fleet be afraid of three guys roaming in cruisers? Lol no. Should they be afraid of getting bubble f'd and having capitals dropped on them? Lol yes. Thank you for re-iterating what I said.

You do not want them to drop right on top of your fleet? There are mechanics in the game for that already! In null, you can install a cyno inhibitor that affects the entire system! With your own (super)capitals in system to dunk people that come in. Otherwise, there is a deployable you can anchor that disables the ability to light cynos within 100 km of it! They do not stop covert cynos as I mentioned previously. See the your own capitals in system to dunk part. You want bubbles to protect you? Anchor them!

So why is your suggestion bad? Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes.

You know what else we do? Scout enemy systems within jump range. When they form up for a drop, we put away things we can't protect from what they have (that we care about losing)

Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#874 - 2016-09-01 10:30:07 UTC
Nevim Otazky wrote:
About the range:

It says the base is 15km + (30% from Leadership 5 + 25% from WC + 20% FC) = 26.6km


15 * 1.3 * 1.25 * 1.2 = 29.25km for the base (command destroyer)
29.25 * 1.5 = 43.875km for Combat Battlecruisers and T3's
29.25 * 2.0 = 58.5km for Command Ships
29.25 * 3.0 = 87.75km for Capitals

So capitals can still boost for a fleet spread over a 170km diameter. However, Command Ships will provide the strongest bonuses and having multiple CS providing the same bonus for redundancy will probably be the standard. In large engagements, I can see CS pilots reshipping and coming back into the fight or hopping from fleet to fleet depending on where they are most needed as well.

The one issue I have with it, is the ship that is most likely to be with a small gang of fast ships that tend to spread out will have the lowest boosting range. Though forcing such gangs to run with inconsistent boosts over a drawn out engagement might be a good thing in terms of balancing the haves fighting the have nots.
xXxNIMRODxXx
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#875 - 2016-09-01 12:21:21 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Jalen Mynar wrote:
yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links?

Triple battleship NPC spawns with their escorts.


...or 6 BC/C with high RoF and TP.
damn, a hulk can't tank it without shield links, and they know ut, that's why they are giving us also that "upgrade".
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#876 - 2016-09-01 12:51:36 UTC
Johnno Ormand wrote:
If these changes go ahead I won't be boosting any longer. I have 3 accounts 1 for PvP and he 2 others are boost/mining but will not put an orca or rorq in a belt. These changes will effectively kill mining for small players like myself. CCp you will loose 2 subscriptions from me over this.


Does your booster mine?
Are your mining ships suddenly unable to mine without boosts?


Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
#877 - 2016-09-01 12:55:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Croc Evil
As of ammunition/fuel for Command Burts modules

Like some other pointed, blog proposed fuel mechanics can create some unpleasant logistics problems with cargo space consumed, stockpiling effort etc.

  • Best solution IMO would be to use not consumed scripts.
  • If you really want to have some resource sink for boosting then crystal mechanics like for lasers or mining seems appropriate to me. In this case you can even update Command Burst Specialist skill effect to lower crystal damage.
  • If you insist on fuel/ammunition then please make command modules capacity high enough for nonstop running without reload for at least hour (better 2 Blink). You can even update Command Burst Specialist skill effect to increase command module capacity.

All options would limit logistic hassle and possible cargo space issues
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#878 - 2016-09-01 13:18:46 UTC
Nevim Otazky wrote:

Sir Constantin wrote:
For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".




This is a good question. Any thoughts on this? Would you consider it part of the emergent gameplay?



it still requires booster ship to be present "on-grid" of the acceleration gate which grid has unlimited access by any ship

sure if someone is inside and is about to be attacked by such squadron the enemy fleet will have that minute and half of free boosts from outside of that grid

for which ppl inside the deep speace pocket should be prepared because if they are anyhow serious in what they are doing they would see boosting ship alongside the others on d-scan
Vraygan
#879 - 2016-09-01 14:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vraygan
Just to state my position, I made my suggestions because I know that Rorquals will rarely be used unless they are given more safety. My suggestions are meant to suggest additional safety mechanics to partially mitigate that. What is your position on that?

Vald Tegor wrote:
I don't need to "Build strawmen to attack you for wanting god mode miners". I'm not attacking you, merely leading you into realizing why your suggestions are ill conceived.
No, that would be Ad Hominem. A Straw-Man argument sets up a false version of the opponent’s position (the Straw-Man) and tries to score points by attacking the Straw-Man. Which is what you did.

Vald Tegor wrote:
Low sec is a very special place. It is hard to lose a pod there if you know what you are doing. As a result, some people run around with implants that cost far more than your Rorq. Would someone troll bait with a rorq bubble? Yeah. Bet on it.
I never said that the bubble should be usable in low sec. It would be prevented the same way low-sec prevents HICs from bubbling there. However if the dev's want Rorquals to still be used in low-sec, devs choosing to allow a defensive bubble that is limited to places where ore is found could help. Obvious bait is obvious.

Vald Tegor wrote:
Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes.
Yep, the things I'm suggesting are already in the game as deployables. Yet for some reason you think that adding any of my suggestions to the Rorqual hull (like bubbles given to HICS) are ill conceived?
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#880 - 2016-09-01 15:02:54 UTC
Vraygan wrote:

Vald Tegor wrote:
Because these mechanics already exist, it just takes effort and resources to use them. You want it passive and for free - the opposite of the design ideals of these changes.
Yep, the things I'm suggesting are already in the game as deployables. Yet for some reason you think that adding any of my suggestions to the Rorqual hull (like bubbles given to HICS) are ill conceived?


redundant I'd say

and then apart from all your suggestions - maybe instead of throwing wars on what changes rorqual needs now, better way would to to actually wait for promised devblog going in details about changes given in november to industrial ships - namely rorqual and orca changes + that new smaller industrial command vessel?

You claim that rorqual to be ever again deployed after november patch will need much more defensive tools at hand - but we do not know yet what CCP have planned for it apart from that "superweapon" and huge mining drones - so maybe instead of wasting nerves on silly arguments now, better wait a moment calmly and see what exacly is he going to receive?