These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ask me about "The CSM" Q&A

First post First post
Author
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#141 - 2012-02-06 21:21:25 UTC
Just passing by to say that whatever you do to fix nullsec's all-important uber-critical issues, must be done without harming hisec. if you are not going to do anything for hisec, then don't do anything at all about hisec... no nerfs, no "increased risk", no bullshit. Be of use or don't mess with hisec.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#142 - 2012-02-06 22:14:48 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Just passing by to say that whatever you do to fix nullsec's all-important uber-critical issues, must be done without harming hisec. if you are not going to do anything for hisec, then don't do anything at all about hisec... no nerfs, no "increased risk", no bullshit. Be of use or don't mess with hisec.


Okay. Thanks for stopping by. Cool

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Tiger Would
Doomheim
#143 - 2012-02-07 02:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger Would
Hi Seleene,

I have been reading through this thread and find you very level headed in many regards.
It is refreshing to see constructive posts!

It almost makes me feel sorry for a thread i made about EvE-community not needing a CSM anymore since there are more accurate and valuable alternatives, in my perception. (probably not proper english, but hey, i bet you wont understand me when i speak dutch)

Anyways...

The arguments i found to support my statement are as follows and would love your thoughts on that.

Looking from a new upto young player (upto 2 years) pov, EvE online can seem daunting, to put it mildly.
Having the prejudice (true or not) surrounding you that you will not be able to catch up with "veterans" and if you want to be a sov holding alliance, given effort and time, you will have no hope of achieving it....other than to join a alliance and be slaved or being dried out for Renting space.....does not help staying ambitious or even interested in the EvE-online game.


This imo will be emphasized by CSM members (quite one sided imo) who all seem to come from one part off the game abusing the CSM status. (< i now see its not applicable to all CSM members and thats the part i am sorry about after reading your thread)

My argument is, that it does not help new subcriber numbers for EvE-online.

You see these very nice trailers about a sandbox game driving home the fact you can become anything, given time, will leave many players disillusioned of ever holding sov space. Now, not everyone will want that ofcourse, but that does seem to be the advertisement focus. Carving out your path into the game of EvE.

Together with the argument one could make that there is a much more accurate way of polling and interacting with the community through forum interaction and online roundtables, these made me put forward the statement, the community does not need a CSM anymore, it hurts gameplay and new subcriber numbers.

Now, i am not going to say i am right on this although i ofcourse think i am, but looking at my personal experience in the past 2 years playing EvE on and off this comes really close to my perception of starting with Eve back than and also of my RL friends and family who are playing EvE since.

We think we found a way to achieve a sov holding null sec alliance now, but it took 2 years to figure out how, and its still all theory. It might not work as we envisioned...lol (actually counting on it and looking forward to the adventure)

Anyways, i care about EvE. It is the sandbox and depth in player driven politics, markets and meaningfull gameplay that got me and friends totally hooked.

It is also the reason i am hoping a lot more new players will join, but given the near impossible mountain you have to climb to get a glimpse of what is possible mixed in with mentioned prejudice (real or not, it is how it is perceived generally) and a "lobsided"CSM with certain members exploiting that position.....well you have to be an almost complete nutter to start playing EvE, specially when you also have a job and family. (events like hulkageddon or just plane griefers will not help either)

Luckily i am such a nutter, so are my friends, but i think this needs attention.

I am not saying things should be dumbed down nor am i saying there should be 100% safe spots. Like you said, the PvP part in Eve makes it work, it adds the feel of adventure and immersion.

But i am certain if it could be made more visible how one could persue his/her ambitions and it would not LOOK as impossible as it does currently, it would help new subscriber numbers greatly.

Another idea i have heard coming from CCP before (2 years back i think at fanfest) that null-sec should maybe be 10 times bigger.........is their any follow up on that in the mean time?

What are your thoughts on that?

Personally i think there should always be null-sec space for the taking (maybe auto grow as alliances settle)
Would this not entice many more corporations and alliances to join forces and start playing the sov holding game in null-sec?
Would this not help the above said about making it look as a real possibility as opposed to an impossibility?
Would it not enhance immersion since the vastness of space is emphasized?

Would it not make null-sec space a lot more political vibrant place?

Sincerely,

T. Would

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2012-02-07 09:09:43 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
200 Titans vs. 800 Maelstroms

You can pen this in many ways, "afk empires", "the foreverwar", "blobs", "death to supers" etc. It comes down to a worrying yet seldomly clearly aknowledged issue. Onlooking spectators may be oblivious to the finer aspects of the politics involved but the common perception of the 0.0 political life is that you have a profileration of two coalitions with added baggage congregating in select places on the map while large swaths of space is completely deserted. One side favouring numerical volume (800 Maelstroms) and one side favouring resource volume (200 Titans), while both enjoy risk-adversity and cost-efficiency in their own way.

Alliance names may come and go, coalitions may change form and shape - yet the only lasting trend in 0.0 politics over the past few years is an increasing growth in volume, with less and less actors in sovereign space (i need to define that, by actors i mean entities with their own will, ambition and sovereignity). It may be a blunt way of putting it, but it's turning into a Red versus Blue scenario with less and less content available for the growing amounts of smaller spectators or groups marginalized from political meta of "growing amount" (wether that's numbers or resources).

Solution: SOV system with lots of targets that can be hit and repped, giving wars a much more fluid feel to them, and removing the incentive to blob up in "800 maelstroms" or "200 titans" over a single timer.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Noisrevbus
#145 - 2012-02-07 14:50:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Lord Zim:
Agreed, to some part at least.

Seleene:
I think you hit it the main concern pretty much on spot, and you definately highlighted the right part. If there are other people reading this thread who want it summed up in more general terms i could repeat it by saying: there's always a risk when you have a position within the CSM; getting slapped by NDA, knowing CCP are actually adressing an issue and get fed a "soon TM"; that you move on and focus on isolated pet peeves.

They mean very little outside of a single ongoing conflict, while the larger picture of 0.0 mechanics affect all of us, at all scales and regions of the game. It's important to constantly remind both yourselves and the rest of us of what holds priority when focus turn to the smaller isolated issues. Don't lose sight of the priority, and keep communicating it well.

You're doing a good job of that here and now, keep that momentum after the elections as well Blink.


In attempt to clear up the second issue:

As for Tier 3 Battlecruisers and Mass mechanics, they were merely examples of the second issue i had. That issue, in short, is that even though we're all so familiar with these issues the changes that have come so far spur on the profileration of volume (as do some recent peripheral CSM discussion). I decided not to delve too deep into it at first, and that may have caused some confusion, but at the same time i didn't want to defeat the purpose of my own initial post by going into detail when i wanted to point to the larger picture - and the problems involved with going into detail. Examples are only examples after all.

The examples meant to point out how the design of the new Battlecruisers feed the volume game. There's a common conception that there are problems with the use of Drakes in large scale battles, yet we introduce "new Drakes" with the same issues yet maybe to an even greater proportion (because at small- and medium scale it's much easier dealing with up to 100 Drakes than it is dealing with a growing number of Tornados; and the Drake have numerous counters there that the Tier 3 Battlecruisers do not). Their design at it's heart is "strong offensive, weak defensive, low cost" which feed the number game far better than any pre-existing options.

That reverse thinking is ... Shocked.


Continued discussion: (just to add depth to the examples)

The same goes for Stealth bombers, they were made easier to bomb with provided you have many of them or operate on a field with big volume and stressed performance. That is not limiting volume, that is feeding volume - even if it better let you bomb clumped targets on a cluttered field. How does it affect their use in ease of bringing more at a smaller scale?

It's the same backward thinking as "if people blob with Drakes, we'll let them blob with something else that counter Drakes". Instead of actually dealing with the core issue of why BC-blobs exist in the first place. Bad first-aid patching is bad, wether it involves Battlecruisers in Crucible or testbeds from Apocrypha. I don't care about the Drake any more than you do, but Crucible was yet another slap in the face of undermanned action and interaction between actors of different scales - i care about that. So i can't go "i don't care, F# the Drake, yo", like you did, nore can i follow the proposed changes that turn it into a better "volume player" than it already is, yet marginalize it in any other setting and streamline the game another time over. It's continued encouragement of volume with Crucible, and after Crucible.

It gives the impression that the issues and their multi-scale impact are not as well understood as we'd all like, and raises the importance of reminders and priority.


The same goes for the flow of ideas revolving non-sov regions and gameplay. I'm not necessarily saying we should mass-limit stargates, but the mechanics for that is already in place as a volume-limiting aspect. Yet discussion as of late, going back to the first point, flow in the other direction of adapting sov-related, volume-based mechanics on other areas of the game (destructible stations, player-owned customs offices); instead of discussing how volume-limiting mechanics from those areas of the game (where their functionality today is tried and tested, as with mass and capture) could be adapted to general gameplay. Since the flow or direction of suggestions is reversed people will jump to conclusions that "sovspace CSM try to impose bad mechanics on everyone else". Not the most fair assessment, but that's the reaction it sported (for example in your thread on FHC), due to these two issues i've raised here: poor presentation (attention, priority) and ongoing trend.

Things like spool-up, mass and capture are discussions that affect all of us, instead of being isolated, peripheral and subsided issues (under specific conditions that all of us want to do away with anyway).
Tanaka Aiko
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2012-02-07 15:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanaka Aiko
Seleene wrote:

Noisrevbus wrote:
If Apocrypha was first aid: If FW and WH are test-beds

Where is the discussion revolving around transplanting their mechanics to 0.0 space? Wormholes already have staggering mass mechanics similar to what can be discussed in regard to Stargates, Cynosural Fields and Bridges. Obviously not in such extreme ways, but the mechanics have already been implemented. The codebase exist.


Are you asking why the mass budget system isn't being applied to Stargates, Cynosural Fields and Bridges? I'm not sure I understand what would be gained by that.... ?

i think he was talking about a limit on number of ships on fleet, or maybe just limitating supercap.
if stargate and/or cyno had mass limit, you wouldn't be able to field easily lots of shield, and/or very big ships, and so would be forced to use mostly a few very efficient ships from stargate/bridge, and field very few supercap with cyno
that would mean less blobs, and less use of supers
(well at least i think he was thinking something like that :p)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2012-02-07 15:07:45 UTC
No. That's wholly the wrong way to solve this, you want to give people incentives, not force through hard limits.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Noisrevbus
#148 - 2012-02-07 15:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Once again, no i'm not really suggesting that - all i'm saying is that it's surprising that discussion do not go in that direction more (from volume to time, from limiting the weight of titans on a given field to staggering mass as a whole).

If you ask me about my preferences, they lie entirely in supplementing and replacing some existing volume-based structure-interaction mechanics with time-based alternatives. It's inline with what both Mittens and Seleene has discussed on various occassions (yet not actively enough, as was my point here).

I want to hack into your POS and rob your silos, bump your Titans or offline some modules that annoy you enough to react with short notice, start your own short timers to fix it out in space and force you to spread thin in your multi-region empires if you want to be active enough to deal with broad-scale incursions from many small groups (not sansha).

I want to find other ways to grief you that take the same amount of time regardless (within some reasonable limitation) the size of my fleet and the size of my ship. This game need more of the tension that exist when you put that tower or control-unit up, than when you try to take such things down. It will hardly solve every issue, but it's a good place to start.

This thread isn't really about me though, or discussing isolated issues - so let's get back to asking Seleene questions, shall we?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2012-02-07 16:04:00 UTC
I wasn't responding to you in my last post, I was responding to Tanaka.

Also I had apparently spent more than 5 minutes or whatever it is typing up a long-winded response, but the forum ate it. **** this forum software.

If you're talking about mass or volume limits on f.ex cynos, so each cyno kan only take f.ex a titan before going poof, all they'll do is bring more cynoships. It won't really reduce the blobs, but I'm not against this kind of change. Hitting POSes to rob silos etc is more of a guerilla tactic, and while it's not necessarily a bad idea (not sure if actually being able to steal silo content in f.ex an alliance's dead timezone is something to go for, though. You can go too far in the griefing direction too), it still doesn't come anywhere near solving the "volume issue" which you'll see in every war in existence, because they're still dominated by timers which give you a few days to form up a defense fleet for.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#150 - 2012-02-07 16:14:36 UTC
The fundamental problem with all truly valid counters to blob tactics is simple.

EWAR is impossible to coordinate effectively on that scale for full effect. So, in the end all blobs become "moar numbers and moar dps". The super carriers AOE ECM effect is one example where that was attempted to resolve the situation, but this goes back to making those ships the central element in those fleets.

The supercaps were able to "counter blobs" because they were ridiculously more tanky and more ganky than all the blobs put together. This obviously made people unhappy due to the basic nature of trying to play a game.


The tactics that work on small gangs break down as you get so many on the field that it's not possible to coordinate 50 ECM ships or 50 Sensor dampening ships to apply support properly. Logistics stays working for the most part because primaries are called and single ships are coordinated - when multiple ships are "primaried" and logistics have to coordinate repairing 10-20 ships, it becomes much more chaotic and breaks down. This doesn't happen in blob warfare because the commander sticks 300 people in one room and can only relay orders to one group. What SHOULD be happening for higher levels of coordination is 300 people are led by 30 squad commanders of 10 people, or 10 commanders and 30 per commander (for example, any break down beyond 300 would be great).

Really, you don't need 400 people shooting 1 ship to kill it. EVE null sec alliances, for the most part, don't have the coordination to break squads into 10 man "Gank squads" that have plenty of DPS to break down DPS into groups that focus fire. Basically, EVE Commanders run on a HEAVILY centralized command structure based on 1 person giving orders. A decentralized fleet composition with units able to break down into smaller groups amid the chaos would be more effective if people developed the infrastructure to support it. (Training, Communications, and Execution)

10 DPS ships in optimal is enough to break 1 tank in about 30 seconds to 1 minute in general - with logistics you can counter that, but not with 10 different ships being pounded by 10 different firing squads in a coordinated fashion... you'll just overload the logistics communication centers.

So, without breaking down people into smaller units to coordinate on a bigger battlefield - something that they have tried to support through the in game EVE Voice (however the implementation when used in practical application isn't functional - that's for another thread on how I would improve EVE Voice for fleet command). Combined with the inability to effectively coordinate EWAR on a mass scale when it's not being primaried - blobs become very effective.

For example, let's say we had a 100 man sniper maelstrom fleet facing you down. The most effective tactic would be to tracking disrupt them. If i had 100 guys and told each to fit a tracking disruptor, it'd be currently impossible for me to coordinate 100 of those people to properly TD 100 of the snipers with enough efficiency that the tactic would work - because I can't directly show who has what affect being applied to them and i'd end up with 10-20 people TDing the same person just because inefficiency.

One way of helping this out is if your overview showed what affects were being put on what ships. AFAIK this information is already being sent to the client because we see the special effect of EWAR turned on and "pointing" towards the target ship, but noone has the capacity for awareness to track that during a fleet of 100 people (if they don't already have special effects off). One tool that would help fleets coordinate EWAR is to show what ships on the overview have an effect being applied to them (in theory, this is already being done, so an icon on the overview would work). I'm not going to focus on how the UI implementation of this could be better. I think the improvement that would make this work is to put this information "on the screen" and not on the overview, as we all know CCP wants to move into improving UI interface away from staring at a list on the overview, and more onto the screen we look at. Then, we can look at our screens and say "Ok, we need EWAR on xyz" and pilots can identify which targets need ewar applied to them on a mass scale - without a lot of "talking" for the coordination aspect.

In the end, the tools provided make it difficult to train people to deal with situations on a mass scale that go beyond "blob" tactics. An EVE Voice system that promoted decentralized command (the current one doesn't, despite the break down of channels.) And a method of identifying effects on ships on the field would be a strong first step to helping players manage these situations.

Where I am.

Raivi
Perkone
Caldari State
#151 - 2012-02-09 15:10:16 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
One way of helping this out is if your overview showed what affects were being put on what ships. AFAIK this information is already being sent to the client because we see the special effect of EWAR turned on and "pointing" towards the target ship, but noone has the capacity for awareness to track that during a fleet of 100 people (if they don't already have special effects off). One tool that would help fleets coordinate EWAR is to show what ships on the overview have an effect being applied to them (in theory, this is already being done, so an icon on the overview would work).


Just had to say I really like this idea. The info is already coming as part of the visual effects, so making it an optional column in the overview would hopefully be doable and would really open up more options for using ewar in medium to large engagements.
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#152 - 2012-02-09 17:21:41 UTC
Raivi wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
One way of helping this out is if your overview showed what affects were being put on what ships. AFAIK this information is already being sent to the client because we see the special effect of EWAR turned on and "pointing" towards the target ship, but noone has the capacity for awareness to track that during a fleet of 100 people (if they don't already have special effects off). One tool that would help fleets coordinate EWAR is to show what ships on the overview have an effect being applied to them (in theory, this is already being done, so an icon on the overview would work).


Just had to say I really like this idea. The info is already coming as part of the visual effects, so making it an optional column in the overview would hopefully be doable and would really open up more options for using ewar in medium to large engagements.

I know offering "implementations" is often frowned upon, but this could also be shown on the current target but grayed out or dimmed, as it is an effect from someone else.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#153 - 2012-02-10 19:28:44 UTC
Seleene, I have a couple of questions (and 3 votes to distribute Blink )

1. What is your position on what RiptardTeg calls "Toddler Sov" - or the concept that NPC nullsec (and perhaps by extension LoSec and/or Wormholes) can have some limited version of a sovereignty mechanism to provide benefits for the residents as well as incentives for fights?

2. Do you think that Titans are still overpowered after having been in PL fleets?

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#154 - 2012-02-11 06:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
Seleene, I have a couple of questions (and 3 votes to distribute Blink )

1. What is your position on what RiptardTeg calls "Toddler Sov" - or the concept that NPC nullsec (and perhaps by extension LoSec and/or Wormholes) can have some limited version of a sovereignty mechanism to provide benefits for the residents as well as incentives for fights?


I've hit on this in a couple previous posts as well as in a recent blog post (which I cannot link properly because the forums are being stupid)!!! Here ya go:

http://seleenes-sandbox.blogspot.com/2012/02/q-part-ii-low-sec.html

Have a read of that and it should clear up some of my thoughts on it. To simplify things tho, yes, I would like to see some form of increased player interaction with NPC's overall.

As for something more specific like 'toddler sov", that's a cute name but I wouldn't really want to put the 'sov' label anywhere near a system like this. I'd like to see players have increased options for how to shape the sandbox in the areas that have been nigh untouchable for nearly nine years now. The best way to do that is with slow and careful, ever-evolving iteration on NPC interactions that allow players to become directly involved with world shaping.

I feel like I've already covered this ground a bit but if you have a more specific question feel free to ask and I'll answer as best I can. Smile

Swearte Widfarend wrote:
2. Do you think that Titans are still overpowered after having been in PL fleets?


Well, according to the latest tweets by CCP Diagoras, PL doesn't even have EVE's largest supercap fleet. Blink Still, I understand what you are asking and, first of all, the issue isn't so much a single Titan, but the proliferation of Titans. I believe that at the current rate they are being churned out that CCP is going to have to take action very soon to mitigate what's becoming a major problem.

That being said, I don't think that a single titan is overpowered because a lone titan is pretty much dog food against a support fleet. Over and over, the issue doesn't seem to be one of A TITAN doing anything bad; it's the scale of the problem when you have multiples of the same ship class, be they Titans or Battleships or whatever, all shooting at the same target - one of them is going to get a glancing blow of some kind and BLAP, that's it.

One of the biggest complaints has been that Titans shouldn't be able to solo sub caps. Well, unless the sub caps are being dumb, they can't. I've been in fights lately where we've watched everything from Tengus to the new battle cruisers smartly kite the titan guns unless there's something to lock them down.

One of the most prolific comments has always been, "Titans should require a support fleet to be effective." Well, that's what's happening right now. When PL drops even blap-fit titans, they are supported by billions of ISK in Lachesis and Loki / Proteus tacklers. In our previous campaign, very often, our ISK losses in the 'support fleet' have exceeded anything we've done to the enemy.

I am 100% in support of FIXING this problem, but I think most people would agree that there's no silver bullet for titans / supercarriers. The problem is bigger than 'titan guns'. This stuff goes back to when 50 battleships were blapping frigates too. Once you get XX number of big ships in a blob, ONE of them is going to score. That is where the main problem lies, IMO, and where we should be looking to START to curb things, quickly and smartly.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#155 - 2012-02-11 06:27:18 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
Raivi wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
One way of helping this out is if your overview showed what affects were being put on what ships. AFAIK this information is already being sent to the client because we see the special effect of EWAR turned on and "pointing" towards the target ship, but noone has the capacity for awareness to track that during a fleet of 100 people (if they don't already have special effects off). One tool that would help fleets coordinate EWAR is to show what ships on the overview have an effect being applied to them (in theory, this is already being done, so an icon on the overview would work).


Just had to say I really like this idea. The info is already coming as part of the visual effects, so making it an optional column in the overview would hopefully be doable and would really open up more options for using ewar in medium to large engagements.

I know offering "implementations" is often frowned upon, but this could also be shown on the current target but grayed out or dimmed, as it is an effect from someone else.



Yes, this is something that I know the UI guys at CCP wanted to add a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago and I think we're going to see it (or something along these lines) this year at last! Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#156 - 2012-02-12 00:19:01 UTC
Some more questions:

* High Sec Incursions, how would you like to see them changed?

* In the last minutes as well as changing Local Chat Intel there was mention of cloak detection, your thoughts on that?

* Any more details on how you would wish to alter Wardecs, as well as thoughts on CCPs focus on crimewatch? Basically all things PvP in High Sec.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2012-02-12 03:35:45 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

So, without breaking down people into smaller units to coordinate on a bigger battlefield - something that they have tried to support through the in game EVE Voice (however the implementation when used in practical application isn't functional - that's for another thread on how I would improve EVE Voice for fleet command).


Nobody will ever use EVE voice for anything important so long as its part of the EVE client. "I've crashed" and "I've disconnected" are often vital bits of information.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#158 - 2012-02-12 12:38:15 UTC
Seleene wrote:

That being said, I don't think that a single titan is overpowered because a lone titan is pretty much dog food against a support fleet. Over and over, the issue doesn't seem to be one of A TITAN doing anything bad; it's the scale of the problem when you have multiples of the same ship class, be they Titans or Battleships or whatever, all shooting at the same target - one of them is going to get a glancing blow of some kind and BLAP, that's it.


That's a perfect sample of short-sighted vision CCP showed in past. Some are still saying that having OP ships is good when they are few?

So DD is ok?
So the portal is ok?
How about craploads of HP?
Or EW and tackling immunity?

Okey, some think so... but those who don't - please, vote for me Smile

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=780635#post780635

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#159 - 2012-02-16 17:33:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Anecdotal Evidence on the low sec discussion.


Quote:
[ 2012.02.16 02:27:48 ] Priapulida Kaukari > low sec plexes are eh here
[ 2012.02.16 02:27:57 ] Priapulida Kaukari > go to guristas space
[ 2012.02.16 02:28:00 ] Priapulida Kaukari > find some there
[ 2012.02.16 02:28:07 ] Priapulida Kaukari > they droppin those invluns

Where I am.