These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nevim Otazky
Perkone
Caldari State
#961 - 2016-09-03 17:38:00 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
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.


Cool, thanks for the clarification. I didn't count on ship bonuses for my calculation. :)

About small gangs, I think that even now it's not unusual to encounter small gangs with 1-2 CDs. I think with two boosting ships, plus the timer on the boost, you could cover your entire gang for the duration of most engagements. Anyway it's just speculation. I can't wait to see it implemented and play with the system

No time for this

Harold Mach
Swamp Crew
#962 - 2016-09-03 19:24:11 UTC
Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.

I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.

Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.

I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#963 - 2016-09-03 20:17:10 UTC
Harold Mach wrote:
Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.

I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.

Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.

I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill.


well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#964 - 2016-09-03 22:00:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.

Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.

With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.



FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained.


the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk

That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you.

A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost.
A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression.

As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by.

Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers.

All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails.

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.

Dread Red
#965 - 2016-09-03 22:03:53 UTC
No refunds for nerfed leadership skills, jokingly small area of effect for industrial use, putting rorqs or orcas in the belt for p*ss poor returns and extreme risk?

Yep good job CCP, now if all us industrialist would be compliant and just bunch up in our expensive ships so your beloved whiny favored play style players don't even have to work to explode our ships! Yes the bomber fleets are going to love this new regime, everyone in nice tightly grouped target balls. Yes it is not all about high sec. Bombing runs do happen people.

Ammo for running boosts instead of scripts? Oh I see this is how we will pay for those "FREE" Alpha accounts, everything that use to be a one time purchase will now become a consumable!

Amazing you boys at CCP you just never stop developing new ways to squeeze your paying subscribers do you? Great job by the way.

Guess I'll just chalk the leadership training to boost up to lessons learned, lust like POS defender skills, paid for with isk and my precious time, then scheduled for erasure by whim without any decent defined compensation.

Unless of course you mean after I invest more time and isk into training for Citadel skills that won't let me directly target attacking ships you might one day allow me to use those skills for that. That way I might be able to salvage something out of the skills I've already paid for with isk and my time, maybe.

So after you make my Orca and Rorqual skills worthless I'll have to train for new industrial ships, buy the new ships, and take them on grid to get exploded. Thank you CCP, but to be brutally honest anytime I want to go boom I just challenge a bigger ship to a duel, so you really did not have to go to such lengths.

At some point you will reach the tipping point, where it is not worth the constant screwing you hand out to enjoy what is left of a formerly truly enjoyable game, I am sure you will develop ways to accelerate that process, because your developers seem to be really skilled in that area.

CCP refund us for the skills trained for Rorqual, Orca, and POS with non-allocated skill training points, buy back the ships you have neutered, and be responsive to your subscribers just once at a cost to you.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#966 - 2016-09-03 22:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.

Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.

With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.



FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained.


the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk

That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you.

A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost.
A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression.

As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by.

Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers.

All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails.


have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca

you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core
that is in order of risk and of boost amount

why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway)

why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist
Demortis
Galloglas
Fraternity.
#967 - 2016-09-03 22:30:18 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"

Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.


Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.



considering it went from 0 risk to having risk



"Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.


.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change


I don't think so lol my boosters are all changing games and pulling out of jita are not watching whats going on lol.
Demortis
Galloglas
Fraternity.
#968 - 2016-09-03 22:41:13 UTC
Dread Red wrote:
No refunds for nerfed leadership skills, jokingly small area of effect for industrial use, putting rorqs or orcas in the belt for p*ss poor returns and extreme risk?

Yep good job CCP, now if all us industrialist would be compliant and just bunch up in our expensive ships so your beloved whiny favored play style players don't even have to work to explode our ships! Yes the bomber fleets are going to love this new regime, everyone in nice tightly grouped target balls. Yes it is not all about high sec. Bombing runs do happen people.

Ammo for running boosts instead of scripts? Oh I see this is how we will pay for those "FREE" Alpha accounts, everything that use to be a one time purchase will now become a consumable!

Amazing you boys at CCP you just never stop developing new ways to squeeze your paying subscribers do you? Great job by the way.

Guess I'll just chalk the leadership training to boost up to lessons learned, lust like POS defender skills, paid for with isk and my precious time, then scheduled for erasure by whim without any decent defined compensation.

Unless of course you mean after I invest more time and isk into training for Citadel skills that won't let me directly target attacking ships you might one day allow me to use those skills for that. That way I might be able to salvage something out of the skills I've already paid for with isk and my time, maybe.

So after you make my Orca and Rorqual skills worthless I'll have to train for new industrial ships, buy the new ships, and take them on grid to get exploded. Thank you CCP, but to be brutally honest anytime I want to go boom I just challenge a bigger ship to a duel, so you really did not have to go to such lengths.

At some point you will reach the tipping point, where it is not worth the constant screwing you hand out to enjoy what is left of a formerly truly enjoyable game, I am sure you will develop ways to accelerate that process, because your developers seem to be really skilled in that area.

CCP refund us for the skills trained for Rorqual, Orca, and POS with non-allocated skill training points, buy back the ships you have neutered, and be responsive to your subscribers just once at a cost to you.



This guys see's the value we have all put in and can understand how royolly hooped we are by CCP in this matter. One of the most easyist ways to kill a game is to kill the builders and sellers that make you content. I really do hope CCP DEV team is readiing all the comments.
Dread Red
#969 - 2016-09-03 23:01:30 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Without going into a ton of detail which would be wasted deep in a thread.

Why not add a new module called "Industrial Relay" which can be fit to any industrial boost ship (porpoise/orca/rorqual) and allow for relaying of industrial boosts from any Rorqual with an active Industrial Core. At the same time go ahead and remove the ability to boost from within a POS shield and force break tether like all other boosts. Also while we're at it reduce the Industrial Core cycle time to 1 minute and the fuel requirement accordingly.

With this you allow for boosting pilots to avoid sitting directly in warpable anoms/belts for 5 minute intervals; at the same time attaching the burst effect to mobile ships which can move with the mining fleet through large belts without having to turn off the industrial core, slowboat/warp out and back to a new location, and repeat. All this while still leaving enough vulnerability to be caught, but not overly-so for a non-combat activity.



FYI-I'm not exactly changing my stance on my previous post. I'm still against the requirement of the Industrial Core for providing boosts. However, if use of the Industrial Core allowed for the bonus of being able to position anywhere in system and relaying those boosts through other ships with an active Relay Module then I can see a balance being obtained.


the industrial core is no longer needed you only need it for MAX boosts if you are willing to take that extra risk

That is a way more thoughtless (uninformed) response than I would expect from you.

A boosting Rorqual without industrial core - Is worse than Orca boosts and nearly 5X the cost.
A Rorqual on grid without industrial core is useless - Unless Devs are removing the need of the Industrial core for ore compression.

As for taking the "added risk" of using the ships only useful ability - Don't use it, an Orca does a better job. Do use it your Rorqual is a sitting duck for any small gang passing by.

Being able to use some gimmick shield isn't going to help, if the Rorqual has no way to forcefully repel attackers.

All Devs are doing is making Rorquals and Orcas easy killmails.


have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca

you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core
that is in order of risk and of boost amount

why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway)

why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you are obviously not a Rorqual pilot. "Why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers?" Asking the question proves your lack of awareness, nonetheless, postulate for a moment how well the drones of a "rorq" would fair against just five destroyers? Bet you 2 billion isk who wins every time, not most times, but every time.

Please don't troll CCP wants legit feedback, before they implement what they want, guess they like forum tears also, lol.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#970 - 2016-09-03 23:06:59 UTC
Dread Red wrote:
lugh crow-slave wrote:


have you not read the blog? the rorqual has been buffed so that w/o the core it still does better than the orca

you have porpus>orca>rorqual>rorqual w/core
that is in order of risk and of boost amount

why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers? (from my understanding its fighters are getting buffed further anyway)

why should the ones who were mining not go re-ship and defend it or god forbid you get friends who were ratting in the area to come assist
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you are obviously not a Rorqual pilot. "Why does the rorq need a way to repel attackers?" Asking the question proves your lack of awareness, nonetheless, postulate for a moment how well the drones of a "rorq" would fair against just five destroyers? Bet you 2 billion isk who wins every time, not most times, but every time.

Please don't troll CCP wants legit feedback, before they implement what they want, guess they like forum tears also, lol.


no really why should a rorqual be able to be perfectly capable of defending itself rather than needing support? this game is built on cooperation the more you have the better benefits you reap it only makes sense that the highest level of mining boosts should require high level cooperation. Believe it or not you can mine w/o any boosts at all if you don't like the risk and if like so many seem to think no one will be willing to use the boosts then your profits wont suffer because the price of ore will rise to compensate. ofc if you think enough ppl will be willing to use these boosts then i can understand your worry
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#971 - 2016-09-03 23:08:50 UTC
Was assuming it went without saying the DPS will be supplied by other ships ... was once again proven wrong.
Against 5 dessies, your Skiffs can easily blow them up. 2-3000+ DPS from miners alone -which applies very well I might add- is usually enough one would think.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#972 - 2016-09-04 00:19:28 UTC
I love this vocal minority of enraged miners.

CCP have devised a way for some ships to actually be a valid target when being used for their intended purpose THE HORROR.
Harold Mach
Swamp Crew
#973 - 2016-09-04 00:47:41 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Harold Mach wrote:
Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.

I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.

Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.

I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill.


well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role?


I just pointed out that it is a player interaction issue and not one of who is smart or if a specialized ship should be used. The proposed change will result in LESS positive player interaction. Seven years of play on just one account, either another player or my corp provided boosts, I did not wish to spend the real world money for a 2nd account OR to play to grind isk to buy plex. I do whatever I feel like doing at any given day, always am active and at the keyboard.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#974 - 2016-09-04 01:09:15 UTC
The issue here isn't the rorqual needing support to get out of a tight spot, it's the risk versus reward of fielding one.
Dread Red
#975 - 2016-09-04 01:10:00 UTC
Harold Mach wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Harold Mach wrote:
Now let me put in my current game play style and let's see how this is affected by the proposed change.

I actively mine solo in low and .5 sec generally in a shield buffed procurer aligned on a safe with a dozen other safes in system , none of which are on a direct line between warp locations. Sometimes I will make friends with another miner and form fleet with them and provide mining bonuses (level 3 boost skills, only squad level command) I have risk that the other miner will warp to me and deploy a tackle and call his friends in to kill me, I have reward in additional isk/hr. Game play: I am encouraged to talk to other players and make friends.

Post this change I will have no reward to counter the increased risk from talking to and forming fleets with another player.

I am opposed to the removal of the minimal in fleet buffs that one miner could provide to another miner, I would support a change to have this in fleet buff be restricted to only fleet members that are on grid, but only for the mining foreman skill.


well considering most smart people got around this risk just by using an alt i'm not sure it is all that great an example. besides why should just anyone be able to give buffs like that?? why shouldn't you need a ship for the role?


I just pointed out that it is a player interaction issue and not one of who is smart or if a specialized ship should be used. The proposed change will result in LESS positive player interaction. Seven years of play on just one account, either another player or my corp provided boosts, I did not wish to spend the real world money for a 2nd account OR to play to grind isk to buy plex. I do whatever I feel like doing at any given day, always am active and at the keyboard.
Harold player interaction is just a buzzword they hide behind. Fleet bonus sharing for industrialists is how we spread our influence and make friends in EVE, so naturally the wannabe pew pew crowd is against it. They don't want another ship to hot drop them from another belt to help save your Orca or Rorqual that is why they are excited about the laughable 15k range. It is okay for boosting during an attack but sucks for defense, that is what CCP calls balance. Sixty seconds of boost won't get you from one belt to another, so this effectively disrupts positive interaction between industrialists. Recruiting new industrialists with boosts is a thing of the past unless you all want to bunch up and try to operate in a nice little ball of killmails.

CCP could care less, if they had anyone on staff who gave two sh*ts about industrialists they would have known how toxic this idea would be, clearly they don't mind because to them industrialists don't matter, except as targets. Sad thing is now they want us to continue to pay to be targets while they bring in a new crop of shooters in free accounts!

Wonder if anyone on the CSM will stand up?

This will continue until industrialists stand up and stand together, time for another riot, and more effective activism that makes CCP listen, in my humble opinion.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#976 - 2016-09-04 02:00:48 UTC
Dread Red wrote:
Recruiting new industrialists with boosts is a thing of the past unless you all want to bunch up and try to operate in a nice little ball of killmails.




or you could idk... recruit more boosters



the number of people who are disapointed when i tell them that "we don't need another orca we have on 23.5/7" is remarkable so i doubt it will be hard to find one. We generally get 1-2 a weak in the recruitment chat with either "i have an orca" or "i'm just about trained into one"


and this idea that people just want the shiny km of a rorq in belt is just naive. your kill mail doesn't mean much. The reason you see pilots shooting high value ships is less for the kill mail and more in hopes that it is worth enough for friends to try and defend it. but you all don't seem to understand the mentality of defending yourself
Dread Red
#977 - 2016-09-04 02:32:19 UTC
CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.

Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.

CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.

CCP buff the Orca like you plan to buff the Rorqual including the super defense weapon, make sure the industrial boosts are system wide but don't operate within a certain distance of stations or POS and you've reached a good middle ground where fielding an Orca will not feel like pressing self destruct.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#978 - 2016-09-04 02:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Dread Red wrote:
CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.

Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.

because they stripped everything out to give it cargo expecting the support fleet to give it defense(i know other ships out side of alts is a scary idea for some of you)
Quote:

CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.



again there are sooo many ways to defend yourself and even more with the help of others. it is not just industrial pilots that need to haul things through HS/LS/NS most of us do. yet i have never lost a freighter in HS outside of a war. and when it comes to miners the smallest amount of paying attention and tank goes a long way
Dread Red
#979 - 2016-09-04 02:57:53 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Dread Red wrote:
CCP i get what you are going for with the "Command Boost Concept" but putting industrial commands in the same category of combat commands is just plain wrong.

Unless you are going to make major changes like fitting combat modules on industrial ships. It always seemed foolish that a freighter has no room for weapons or a cloak but a frigate does, just saying. Pirates can build and modify war ships up to Titans but no one in all of New Eden could modify a freighter to even have a rocket launcher welded to the hull.

because they stripped everything out to give it cargo expecting the support fleet to give it defense(i know other ships out side of alts is a scary idea for some of you)
Quote:

CCP it seems you just want defenseless targets so pew pew types have to face no risk of losing the fight as long as they are willing to lose their ship to Concord as a so called "punishment" after the fact.



again there are sooo many ways to defend yourself and even more with the help of others. it is not just industrial pilots that need to haul things through HS/LS/NS most of us do. yet i have never lost a freighter in HS outside of a war. and when it comes to miners the smallest amount of paying attention and tank goes a long way
Gosh I've never lost a freighter in high sec, low sec, or null sec even during wars on any of my accounts. Glad we could clear up who the actual better pilot is.

Been both smart and lucky because I never even had a cyno killed and goodness knows your butt is hanging out in the breeze when you are part of a cyno chain for carriers and freighters.

So because someone does not share your opinion does not mean they have no experience, or as the facts prove in this case they may well just be a better pilot, well versed in team play fulfilling roles you, by self admission, at times failed at.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#980 - 2016-09-04 03:28:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Dread Red wrote:


So because someone does not share your opinion does not mean they have no experience, or as the facts prove in this case they may well just be a better pilot, well versed in team play fulfilling roles you, by self admission, at times failed at.



it was to show that you are not as you put it "defenseless". and yeah ofc i have failed at staying alive. you are always going to have bad days and there will always be some one who can outplay you even on you best days. I don't how ever get upset with the game and curse ccp for it. I know there are ways to avoid being shot I know i have tools i can use to achieve my goals and most importantly I know at its heart eve is a game built on player interaction. Not just positive interaction but negative where the game truly shines where the objectives of two groups of players can not coexist and conflict erupts as a result. This can be as obvious and simple as a gate camp, or as subtle and complex as market traders manipulating prices.


this idea that some how industrial ships are at a higher risk doing their day to day activities than a widow jumping into a fight is just ludicrous. The only difference is the widow pilot has accepted he may blow up where the industrial ship believes he should be safe