It has been a little bit since my last post and in that time much has happened mainly in the form of dev blogs that have either pissed you off or made you the happiest Eve pilot ever. I am sure you can figure out the one that I'm taking talking about. Yes, it is the one about missile balancing and the indirect Drake and Tengu nerf. If you have not read it please read it now here (link). Ok, now that you have become informed of the upcoming changes to missiles, lets talk about them. I am going to start off with some hard facts focused mainly on what this will mean to heavy missile users and then give out my opinion.
First the facts, and lets start with a quote directly from the dev blog:
Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
So there you have it the changes to heavy missiles that are being tested right now. Before we get into the math, here is the set up of my old ratting Tengu that I used against Angel Cartel rats which will be the baseline.
[Tengu, Tengu 44]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner
Pithi C-Type Small Shield Booster
Explosive Deflection Field II
Kinetic Deflection Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Cap Recharger II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
A nice fit that according to EFT puts out ~609 DPS at a range of 106.3 km with my skills (most skills level 5, some level 4). The rest of stats are not very necessary since we are only looking at the changes to DPS and range of heavy missiles. That is with the current state of heavy missiles or pre-nerf. Now, Fozzie says that they are going to reduce heavy missile damage by 20% across the board so that 609 DPS goes down by 122 DPS to put you at 486 DPS or in simpler terms, "A lot less". On top of that, the range will decreased by ~25% which is a loss of ~25.5 km putting you at ~79 km. The range decrease is rather frustrating but not going to cause many headaches. Seventy-nine kilometers is still plenty of range to play around with and is well outside most NPC rat's range. The big thing that is making me think about selling my Tengu is the DPS nerf. This is a big change and one that will really affect not just Tengu pilots but all ships that use heavy missiles, but more on that further down.
Now for a ship that is a bit more common, the dreaded Drake. As I did with the Tengu, lets start with a baseline fit for ratting, or a common passive drake.
[Drake, Drake 17]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Thermic Dissipation Field II
Kinetic Deflection Field II
Kinetic Deflection Field II
Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Hobgoblin II x5
A standard passive drake with a ton of tank and OK DPS. The DPS on this is ~395 DPS without drones and my skills and has a range of ~70.9 km. After the winter expansion changes the DPS will be brought down by ~79 DPS to put you at ~316 dps and the range will be lowered by ~18 km to bring you down to ~52 km. This time around the amount of DPS that was lost does not concern me all that much mainly due to the fact that pilots using a drake for PVE are not trying to get the most DPS they are simply trying to get a ship that will work while they skill or grind for better more expensive ships. The range nerf on the other hand does greatly concern me. At ~52 km you will be in range of most BS's size rats but since passive drakes are commonly fitted without an AB, since most just sit there and tank the damage, it means that you have to spend more time slow bloating to your enemy or have to fit an AB, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The range of a PVP Drake is going to be the same, unless fitted with range rigs, which will greatly nerf the effectiveness of the dreaded Drake army/blob. One of the strengths of the drake blob was its ability to pull range on anything smaller than a BS and with these changes that will effectively be lost. The dreaded Drake nerf was not a nerf to the ship at all is seems.
The math and facts now out of the way, what does this say to me? Well the first thing that comes to mind is, "What the hell am I going to rat/mission in now?" The Tengu will be making about the same money has a Raven fitted with cruise missiles, if not less, and well the drake always sucked for PVE in the first place. In fact, these changes really remove the ability to rat in anything smaller than a BS. You could fit out a HAM Tengu but I found it a lot easier to tank the rats from afar than it was up close and personal. So that is pretty much out, and the only other ship I can think of that will work is, the other ship I used to rat with, the Ishtar. A baseline sentry Ishtar fit:
[Ishtar, Ishtar 16]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Dark Blood Armor Explosive Hardener
Dark Blood Armor Explosive Hardener
Adaptive Nano Plating II
Adaptive Nano Plating II
10MN Afterburner II
Omnidirectional Tracking Link I
Sensor Booster II
Large Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell
Dark Blood Cap Recharger
Drone Link Augmentor I
Drone Link Augmentor I
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
Medium Sentry Damage Augmentor I
Medium Sentry Damage Augmentor I
Garde II x5
This Ishtar puts out ~538 DPS from drones alone and after the missile changes I am hard pressed to find a cruiser/battle cruiser size ship that is better at PVE. That begs the question, "Does CCP not want people PVEing in ships smaller than battleship size?" It really is starting to look that way. The Tengu was always seen has the ship that pilots, like my self, who did not like BS size ships used. It was used has a way to make money at a speed comparable to everyone else. Given its close DPS and its better ability to hit smaller rats it made comparable isk to any BS size ship, but now BS size ships will simply do better than it in every way and I for one find that very disheartening.
CCP has been trying to make the game more extensive by bringing all other ships in line and setting up ship classes/lines that would be good at some things but bad at others. This expansion on the other hand is starting to look like CCP is setting up a natural progression to battleships and capital ships for PVE and large fleet warfare while leaving cruisers stuck in the small gang and solo category.
Welcome to the New Eve....
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Caution - Combat Ship Balances
CCP will be finishing the frigate ship balancing in the winter, blowing through destroyers, and moving straight to cruisers. The tech 1 versions of cruisers will be balanced with the winter expansion but this brings up a worrying question, "What are they going to do to the tech 2 versions?" Most importantly what are they going to do to the ships that have become a well established fleet doctrine?
When I think of that question four ships come to mind, the zealot, muninn, drake (I know its it not a tech 2 ship) and logistic ships. Lets look at the first three since they are the bulk of their respective fleet doctrines and the main damage dealers. The zealot in armor hac fleets, the muninn in sniper hac gangs and the drake in the drake army/blob fleet. These fleet doctrines were built around the very strengths of these ships, the small sig and speed of the zealot, the high alpha potential of the muninn and the cheap cost but good balance of dps and tank of the drake. If any of these things were to change than these fleets, which are very popular, would also be changed drastically or completely made useless.
Take the zealot for example. The standard ahac fleet is built around the idea of having has small as sig as possible while maintaining over 500 m/s speed making them extremely hard to hit by anything battleship size or up. These fleets also have excellent dps and moderate range given the use of scorch ammo on pulse lasers. The down side is the weaker tank and the need to be at close ranges to be able to put on full dps and the higher than average SP and skill requirement to fly this fleet well. Right now this fleet doctrine counters BS size fleets very well if they can get in under the guns of the BS's and this is why it has been used very widely by the DOTBROs as a counter to the alpha mael fleet of the GSF. Now, lets do some wild speculation shall we. CCP decides the zealot is just a bit over powered and nerfs the zealot in a way that it will not be able to fit the requirements of the ahac fleet. That would effectively kill this very used fleet and force players to look else where for a counter to the enemy fleet. It would do the opposite of what CCP is trying to do and that is make all ships want to be used not just the "best" ones. I for one am worried that CCP will make this mistake.
Sure you can argue that shaking things up a bit is good for the game and I completely agree but do not shake things up by nerfing one ship forcing players to look else where. Why not take a page from Blizzard's book. Recently Blizzard released a major patch for Diablo 3 that changed the way the classes could be played. Blizzard did not nerf the classes, except for a few OP chases, no, they buffed all the unused skills/runes to make them more attractive than just the 6 skills that worked best. They gave the players more variety through buffs instead of forcing them to change through nerfs. CCP should do the same, why not buff the unused ships to give players more choices in countering the enemy than just this one doctrine. Buff the Sacrilege or the Ishtar so that they can become a new ahac fleet doctrine that is also effective against another fleet in their own way. Players crave choices like this and we all have ships that we love for no other reason other than we do and if those ships become useful for their own fleet than that will make all of Eve a happier place. So CCP while some people might be calling for the nerf of some of these ships *cought drake cought* I hope they take the time to bring the other unused ship inline before breaking out the nerf bat.
The fourth ship(s) I mentioned are logistics and that is a post at another time...
When I think of that question four ships come to mind, the zealot, muninn, drake (I know its it not a tech 2 ship) and logistic ships. Lets look at the first three since they are the bulk of their respective fleet doctrines and the main damage dealers. The zealot in armor hac fleets, the muninn in sniper hac gangs and the drake in the drake army/blob fleet. These fleet doctrines were built around the very strengths of these ships, the small sig and speed of the zealot, the high alpha potential of the muninn and the cheap cost but good balance of dps and tank of the drake. If any of these things were to change than these fleets, which are very popular, would also be changed drastically or completely made useless.
Take the zealot for example. The standard ahac fleet is built around the idea of having has small as sig as possible while maintaining over 500 m/s speed making them extremely hard to hit by anything battleship size or up. These fleets also have excellent dps and moderate range given the use of scorch ammo on pulse lasers. The down side is the weaker tank and the need to be at close ranges to be able to put on full dps and the higher than average SP and skill requirement to fly this fleet well. Right now this fleet doctrine counters BS size fleets very well if they can get in under the guns of the BS's and this is why it has been used very widely by the DOTBROs as a counter to the alpha mael fleet of the GSF. Now, lets do some wild speculation shall we. CCP decides the zealot is just a bit over powered and nerfs the zealot in a way that it will not be able to fit the requirements of the ahac fleet. That would effectively kill this very used fleet and force players to look else where for a counter to the enemy fleet. It would do the opposite of what CCP is trying to do and that is make all ships want to be used not just the "best" ones. I for one am worried that CCP will make this mistake.
Sure you can argue that shaking things up a bit is good for the game and I completely agree but do not shake things up by nerfing one ship forcing players to look else where. Why not take a page from Blizzard's book. Recently Blizzard released a major patch for Diablo 3 that changed the way the classes could be played. Blizzard did not nerf the classes, except for a few OP chases, no, they buffed all the unused skills/runes to make them more attractive than just the 6 skills that worked best. They gave the players more variety through buffs instead of forcing them to change through nerfs. CCP should do the same, why not buff the unused ships to give players more choices in countering the enemy than just this one doctrine. Buff the Sacrilege or the Ishtar so that they can become a new ahac fleet doctrine that is also effective against another fleet in their own way. Players crave choices like this and we all have ships that we love for no other reason other than we do and if those ships become useful for their own fleet than that will make all of Eve a happier place. So CCP while some people might be calling for the nerf of some of these ships *cought drake cought* I hope they take the time to bring the other unused ship inline before breaking out the nerf bat.
The fourth ship(s) I mentioned are logistics and that is a post at another time...
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Thoughts - Winter Expansion
Yes, the winter expansion. What I feel is usually the better of the two yearly expansions and this time it will be no different. First off we have all the ship balancing that CCP Fozzie has done which is around 40 ships has of the current dev blog with the possibility of more to come. Plus, there is the tease of new destroyers and the mining frig that I am very excited about (mainly the new destroyers). That is not what everyone is excited and/or worried about tho...... No, this expansion is looking to bring Dust 514 into reality and change that way that Eve is played forever.
There has been some talk about the possible controversy that this will bring, mainly in the fact that with the incarna expansion there was not much "space stuff", and this expansion could turn out the same way if it is mainly focused on Dust. The real question is, "Is this a bad thing?" I say, "No", in fact I say, "It is completely necessary". Dust is going to change that way Eve played, no longer will it all be about important internet spaceships but important internet mercs has well, and I for one can not see anyway of getting around the fact that this requires a full expansion to integrate into an already expansive universe.
CCP has also realized that, and that is why, at least I feel why, CCP Fozzie was moved to the ships rebalance team. With all the ship changes there is going to be a lot of time spent by players theory crafting and trying out all the new changes. Now, I know it is of a ship class that the T1 versions are, well, lets just say, almost never used. T1 cruisers are pretty much only used by people who do not, or can not, fly the T2 version or who do not fly battle cruisers for what every crazy reason (yes there are player who do not fly them because they feel that they are OP). With that being the case revamping these ships could do great things for Eve. The T1 cruiser roam may no longer be a suicide roam seeing if you can kill something more expansive than your entire fleet. They might become legitimate threats to other roaming gangs that are not a set fleet doctrine. I for one love that idea. The idea of more variety to fleets mainly small roams of lets see what we can kill also I hope it makes it so player who start out as anything other than Winmatar have a fighting chance and their ship choice is not immediately laughed at.
The winter expansion, yes, it might be light on "spaceship stuff" right now but it is a necessary evil to fully implement what CCP is trying to do. I feel that they are doing it very well and am looking forward to blasting all those mercs with BS high in orbit.
Now I jut hope CCP seeing what could possibly be a real controversy. Ship balancing of already in place and widely used fleet doctrine ships....
There has been some talk about the possible controversy that this will bring, mainly in the fact that with the incarna expansion there was not much "space stuff", and this expansion could turn out the same way if it is mainly focused on Dust. The real question is, "Is this a bad thing?" I say, "No", in fact I say, "It is completely necessary". Dust is going to change that way Eve played, no longer will it all be about important internet spaceships but important internet mercs has well, and I for one can not see anyway of getting around the fact that this requires a full expansion to integrate into an already expansive universe.
CCP has also realized that, and that is why, at least I feel why, CCP Fozzie was moved to the ships rebalance team. With all the ship changes there is going to be a lot of time spent by players theory crafting and trying out all the new changes. Now, I know it is of a ship class that the T1 versions are, well, lets just say, almost never used. T1 cruisers are pretty much only used by people who do not, or can not, fly the T2 version or who do not fly battle cruisers for what every crazy reason (yes there are player who do not fly them because they feel that they are OP). With that being the case revamping these ships could do great things for Eve. The T1 cruiser roam may no longer be a suicide roam seeing if you can kill something more expansive than your entire fleet. They might become legitimate threats to other roaming gangs that are not a set fleet doctrine. I for one love that idea. The idea of more variety to fleets mainly small roams of lets see what we can kill also I hope it makes it so player who start out as anything other than Winmatar have a fighting chance and their ship choice is not immediately laughed at.
The winter expansion, yes, it might be light on "spaceship stuff" right now but it is a necessary evil to fully implement what CCP is trying to do. I feel that they are doing it very well and am looking forward to blasting all those mercs with BS high in orbit.
Now I jut hope CCP seeing what could possibly be a real controversy. Ship balancing of already in place and widely used fleet doctrine ships....
Monday, September 3, 2012
Thoughts - Fleet Doctrines in the Querious/Delve War
The latest conflic to take place in the Delve and Querious regions has been raging for some time now and is starting to reach what has all the makings of a stalemate. We all know how this war started, Nulli fighting RA, PL joins in for "Good Fights", Test follows, all of Soco is called in too defend, all of CFC/Goonies are called in, Soco loses Delve and Querious fast, only Test and Pl stay to defend their new space. This war is going like most good wars in Eve, each side would make some head way and loose some space but for the most part the battle lines stayed were they are. The main border being the jump between 49- and 4-07, which, on the 49- side which can get up to 700 (tho it is usually empty...) Test and PL and on the 4-07 is usually 200-500 Soco. The regional smugglers gate is usually camped by some force but for the most part Test/PL stays on the 49- side. I digress tho, to the ships being flown.
The war has been a place for new fleet doctrines to spring up and to fall really fast. The bulk of these doctrines have come from -A- looking for someway to augment what has become their standard 100MN Tengu fleet. They have tried tornadoes with some effect but are just usually bombed off the grid and then tried the same with oracles which are also usually bombed off the grid, and are now going to try an upgrade to the welpcane. They are calling them "Wolf Tempest" but I am going to call them "Welp Pest" because simply take the welpcane fit and put it on a Tempest. Extremely high dps and good speed but little to no tank. Now, I have not yet flown in one of these, nor do I plan to, but what I understand about it is, it is meant to be warped right on-top of the enemy fleet and then nuke the hell out of them before they even get a chance to get reps going. Take into account the 2 cap neutralizers and you have a fleet that, if it gets into range, could greatly destabilize the enemy.
PL and Test have also come up with a new fleet doctrine, or a revision to an old doctrine, one that they have named Foxcats or Navy Apocs. The Foxcat fleet looks very similar to RnKs Navy Apoc fleet and they feel similar but the execution of each fleet is different due to that size of the engagements. The Foxcat is designed to be a hard hitting, good range and good tracking BS that can survive the onslaught of the -A- Tengu fleet and so far it has been doing very well. They are able to tank the Tengu fleet very well and given the usual use of Slowcats with them it is very easy use triage carriers instead of normal Logi. Couple that with the 90k ish range of the pulse lasers with scorch ammo you can, for the most part, park the fleet and hit the enemy at most engagement ranges inside of on grid warping.
The use of these two fleets has caused a nice stalemate between the two forces. -A-'s Tengu fleet is very mobile allowing them to choose were the fight happens but with Catch being outside of jump range of anything in Querious (except I believe 4-07 to 49- can be made in a carrier) the mobility of the fleet is greatly reduced because PL can simply lite a cyno and bridge onto -A- were ever they fight. With PLs cap support always on the ready and the fact that once they get hunkered down -A- is usually at a lost -A- has been looking to new ideas. The one time -A- has been able to fight against the Foxcat doctrine, without an all new fleet, was when they brought way more logi than usual giving them the repping ability to survive. Unless something changes these two sides will simply get into grid lock and this war will become just about "Good Fights" and blue balls.
That is why -A- is bringing in the "Wolf Tempest". Due to the way the Foxcats are designed they are usually very stationary making them easy targets to a quick warp-in of a Welp Pest fleet that could cause enough damage or destabilize PL/Test enough to give -A- the upper hand. -A- has also been trying void bombing run instead of normal dps bombs. Foxcats with their high tank can survive waves of bombs before taking any true damage. Void bombs on the other hand due no, real, damage instead they "nuet" a large section of cap, which, for a laser based fleet, capacitor is very important. Either of these two strategies could give -A- the upper hand and I am looking forward to participating in the bombing fleets that will be coming.
There you have it, new ideas are being thrown around by both sides trying to get the upper hand on the other. Right now, I would have to give PL and Test the slight advantage but -A- is quickly working on a solution. Here is to more good fights and more innovation.
The war has been a place for new fleet doctrines to spring up and to fall really fast. The bulk of these doctrines have come from -A- looking for someway to augment what has become their standard 100MN Tengu fleet. They have tried tornadoes with some effect but are just usually bombed off the grid and then tried the same with oracles which are also usually bombed off the grid, and are now going to try an upgrade to the welpcane. They are calling them "Wolf Tempest" but I am going to call them "Welp Pest" because simply take the welpcane fit and put it on a Tempest. Extremely high dps and good speed but little to no tank. Now, I have not yet flown in one of these, nor do I plan to, but what I understand about it is, it is meant to be warped right on-top of the enemy fleet and then nuke the hell out of them before they even get a chance to get reps going. Take into account the 2 cap neutralizers and you have a fleet that, if it gets into range, could greatly destabilize the enemy.
PL and Test have also come up with a new fleet doctrine, or a revision to an old doctrine, one that they have named Foxcats or Navy Apocs. The Foxcat fleet looks very similar to RnKs Navy Apoc fleet and they feel similar but the execution of each fleet is different due to that size of the engagements. The Foxcat is designed to be a hard hitting, good range and good tracking BS that can survive the onslaught of the -A- Tengu fleet and so far it has been doing very well. They are able to tank the Tengu fleet very well and given the usual use of Slowcats with them it is very easy use triage carriers instead of normal Logi. Couple that with the 90k ish range of the pulse lasers with scorch ammo you can, for the most part, park the fleet and hit the enemy at most engagement ranges inside of on grid warping.
The use of these two fleets has caused a nice stalemate between the two forces. -A-'s Tengu fleet is very mobile allowing them to choose were the fight happens but with Catch being outside of jump range of anything in Querious (except I believe 4-07 to 49- can be made in a carrier) the mobility of the fleet is greatly reduced because PL can simply lite a cyno and bridge onto -A- were ever they fight. With PLs cap support always on the ready and the fact that once they get hunkered down -A- is usually at a lost -A- has been looking to new ideas. The one time -A- has been able to fight against the Foxcat doctrine, without an all new fleet, was when they brought way more logi than usual giving them the repping ability to survive. Unless something changes these two sides will simply get into grid lock and this war will become just about "Good Fights" and blue balls.
That is why -A- is bringing in the "Wolf Tempest". Due to the way the Foxcats are designed they are usually very stationary making them easy targets to a quick warp-in of a Welp Pest fleet that could cause enough damage or destabilize PL/Test enough to give -A- the upper hand. -A- has also been trying void bombing run instead of normal dps bombs. Foxcats with their high tank can survive waves of bombs before taking any true damage. Void bombs on the other hand due no, real, damage instead they "nuet" a large section of cap, which, for a laser based fleet, capacitor is very important. Either of these two strategies could give -A- the upper hand and I am looking forward to participating in the bombing fleets that will be coming.
There you have it, new ideas are being thrown around by both sides trying to get the upper hand on the other. Right now, I would have to give PL and Test the slight advantage but -A- is quickly working on a solution. Here is to more good fights and more innovation.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Cold Topic - Unprobable Ships
This is a cold topic post, which is an issue that I think should be a hot button issue but for some reason has not gotten the glam or fame that it deserves. The cold button issue for today is, none other than, unprobable ships. What is an unprobable ship, well simply it is a ship that you can not get 100% strength on when probing. Due to some mechanic in the game when you get the correct sensor strength to sig ratio the ship becomes unprobable. Now, this usually involves completely gimping the fit by filling it up with ECCM mods making it so that it is useless except in very specific situations.
So, what is the problem with unprobable ships? Well, unprobable tech 3 cruisers are usually fitted with boosting mods turning them into, you guessed it, Off Grid Boosters!!! The bane of all solo/gang pvp and one of the current hot button issues in Eve. Off grid boosting T3s use the unprobable mechanic to make it so the enemy can not find them and thus destroy them. Now wouldn't you say that fixing or removing this mechanic would be better than nerfing a valid tactic into the ground. Instead make that tactic more risky, make it so a single pilot in a prober can scan the booster down and if not completely taking it out at least make it so the gang/pilot using the booster now has a whole new thing to worry about.
The other main use of unproable ships, which has greatly decreased, was the unprobable sniper Macherial. A 1400 sniper mach could alpha frigs and even some T1 cruisers from a great distance away. Players would make these unprobable and use them to camp gates or stations looking for easy kills. A couple of players used to do this on the infamous Torrinos gate in EC-P8R. I spent a lot of my time trying to lock down those ass-wipes before I learned of the unprobable mechanic. Now, this tactic is not used all that often anymore mainly because I believe that CCP did actually nerf this mechanic, or attempt too, a xpac or two ago but it only ended up nerfing the sniper Mach not the boosting T3.
There has been some resurgence of unprobable sniping ships with -A- new tornado doctrine. This fleet doctrine uses unprobable sniper tornados that would pick off one or two ships before either warping off, warp back in at a different angle and rinse and repeat. It is used as support to another fleet doctrine usually a thundercat fleet or some kind of a BS doctrine. Not sure how well the doctrine is working, I haven't flown in one of these fleets, but it sure is an interesting concept.
So, we are all calling for the nerf to off grid boosting, but why? Why are we not calling for the nerf of unprobable ships so we can all kill those off grid boosting T3s? I for one would love that a whole lot more instead of nerfing off grid boosting all together.
So, what is the problem with unprobable ships? Well, unprobable tech 3 cruisers are usually fitted with boosting mods turning them into, you guessed it, Off Grid Boosters!!! The bane of all solo/gang pvp and one of the current hot button issues in Eve. Off grid boosting T3s use the unprobable mechanic to make it so the enemy can not find them and thus destroy them. Now wouldn't you say that fixing or removing this mechanic would be better than nerfing a valid tactic into the ground. Instead make that tactic more risky, make it so a single pilot in a prober can scan the booster down and if not completely taking it out at least make it so the gang/pilot using the booster now has a whole new thing to worry about.
The other main use of unproable ships, which has greatly decreased, was the unprobable sniper Macherial. A 1400 sniper mach could alpha frigs and even some T1 cruisers from a great distance away. Players would make these unprobable and use them to camp gates or stations looking for easy kills. A couple of players used to do this on the infamous Torrinos gate in EC-P8R. I spent a lot of my time trying to lock down those ass-wipes before I learned of the unprobable mechanic. Now, this tactic is not used all that often anymore mainly because I believe that CCP did actually nerf this mechanic, or attempt too, a xpac or two ago but it only ended up nerfing the sniper Mach not the boosting T3.
There has been some resurgence of unprobable sniping ships with -A- new tornado doctrine. This fleet doctrine uses unprobable sniper tornados that would pick off one or two ships before either warping off, warp back in at a different angle and rinse and repeat. It is used as support to another fleet doctrine usually a thundercat fleet or some kind of a BS doctrine. Not sure how well the doctrine is working, I haven't flown in one of these fleets, but it sure is an interesting concept.
So, we are all calling for the nerf to off grid boosting, but why? Why are we not calling for the nerf of unprobable ships so we can all kill those off grid boosting T3s? I for one would love that a whole lot more instead of nerfing off grid boosting all together.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
CSM Minutes - POS Rework Part 2
Ok, this is a long time coming but here are some more thoughts on the POS rework, mainly the two things that gave my a hard on and wanted me to play Eve again.
The first thing was Selenne comment about wanting to cloak his secret pirate base. My first thought was YES! YES YES YES YES YES!!!! PLEASE CCP LET ME DO THIS!!!! It will make it possible to do real covert style game play deep in enemy territory. You go into enemy territory, a single covert ops that no one even pays attention to. Head for a nice back water system, something nice an out of the way, and there you light your covert cyno and bridge in the cloaky haulers with a pretty new cloaky POS to act as the new center of operations for a covert corp/alliance.
Think of all the tears that will be shed from the carebears when a covert group sets up in their region and shuts the entire place down. oh bady I am getting excited just thinking about it. Then, well then CCP threw out one better. Something that truly makes this idea great. Jumping POS's.
A POS that could jump from one system to another system would make it so the bridge in of cloaky haulers to set up the POS would be useless. Before we get to far ahead lets talk mechanics, the "how" in the whole equation.
First how would a cloaky POS work.
I can see three real systems for a cloaky POS. First a structure would be needed or a special kind of tower with it built that when activated the POS is cloaked. Sounds simple enough, I hit the button and poof the POS is gone...... How would you find the cloaked POS after it is cloaked? A remote control for the cloak would be first idea. I cloak my POS, I get an option to uncloak it when I want. What about the rest of my corp or my alliance will they be able to uncloak it, will I be able to determine who can uncloak the POS? This system leaves the cloaking and uncloaking all in the hands of the leadership of the corp/alliance that put up the POS. It also leaves the tower open to be decloaked by spies that have earned that right.
Another option would be, when the POS is cloaked only members of the corp or alliance will be able to see it even whiled cloaked. The tower can be configured by a member with the correct roles that will determine who can see the POS while cloaked. A cloaked POS with this system will, of course, be greatly limited to what it can do, no defenses (guns, ewar, etc...) no reactions and no building/research. It will only have access to corp hangers and ship arrays allowing players to switch out ships (maybe just other covert cloaky ships) and be a place to drop of loot. This will allow players to interact with the POS without the enemy knowing where it is allowing the corp/alliance to truly run covert operations. Again tho, given spies the ability to earn the right to find the tower.
The final possible solution would be a cloak field. Think of it as a normal POS shield but instead of providing protection it cloaks the POS and anything inside of it to anyone outside of the field. Players can enter the field at will and when inside they are completely cloaked to the outside world but they can see and interact with everything inside of the POS field as if they are not cloaked. Most players will start shouting RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE fully cloaked ships inside of a POS how are we going to know what is inside so we can build the correct counter fleet. To that I say, your right it is OP so it would have to be limited to just covert ships.
Book marks are going to have to be used extensively to keep track of these cloaked bases so I would ask that CCP puts in a system that automatically makes a BM of the tower for the person that anchored and/or onlined the tower or at least the first time it was cloaked. Then again this is Eve and if you cloaked your tower warped off and did not BM it then you may deserve to lose the tower, or at least until it ran out of fuel and became visible again.
There you have it cloaky POSs the thing that could create a truly new profession in Eve.
More on POSs to come, mainly on my ideas on how to find the hidden bastards.
Zeth
The first thing was Selenne comment about wanting to cloak his secret pirate base. My first thought was YES! YES YES YES YES YES!!!! PLEASE CCP LET ME DO THIS!!!! It will make it possible to do real covert style game play deep in enemy territory. You go into enemy territory, a single covert ops that no one even pays attention to. Head for a nice back water system, something nice an out of the way, and there you light your covert cyno and bridge in the cloaky haulers with a pretty new cloaky POS to act as the new center of operations for a covert corp/alliance.
Think of all the tears that will be shed from the carebears when a covert group sets up in their region and shuts the entire place down. oh bady I am getting excited just thinking about it. Then, well then CCP threw out one better. Something that truly makes this idea great. Jumping POS's.
A POS that could jump from one system to another system would make it so the bridge in of cloaky haulers to set up the POS would be useless. Before we get to far ahead lets talk mechanics, the "how" in the whole equation.
First how would a cloaky POS work.
I can see three real systems for a cloaky POS. First a structure would be needed or a special kind of tower with it built that when activated the POS is cloaked. Sounds simple enough, I hit the button and poof the POS is gone...... How would you find the cloaked POS after it is cloaked? A remote control for the cloak would be first idea. I cloak my POS, I get an option to uncloak it when I want. What about the rest of my corp or my alliance will they be able to uncloak it, will I be able to determine who can uncloak the POS? This system leaves the cloaking and uncloaking all in the hands of the leadership of the corp/alliance that put up the POS. It also leaves the tower open to be decloaked by spies that have earned that right.
Another option would be, when the POS is cloaked only members of the corp or alliance will be able to see it even whiled cloaked. The tower can be configured by a member with the correct roles that will determine who can see the POS while cloaked. A cloaked POS with this system will, of course, be greatly limited to what it can do, no defenses (guns, ewar, etc...) no reactions and no building/research. It will only have access to corp hangers and ship arrays allowing players to switch out ships (maybe just other covert cloaky ships) and be a place to drop of loot. This will allow players to interact with the POS without the enemy knowing where it is allowing the corp/alliance to truly run covert operations. Again tho, given spies the ability to earn the right to find the tower.
The final possible solution would be a cloak field. Think of it as a normal POS shield but instead of providing protection it cloaks the POS and anything inside of it to anyone outside of the field. Players can enter the field at will and when inside they are completely cloaked to the outside world but they can see and interact with everything inside of the POS field as if they are not cloaked. Most players will start shouting RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE fully cloaked ships inside of a POS how are we going to know what is inside so we can build the correct counter fleet. To that I say, your right it is OP so it would have to be limited to just covert ships.
Book marks are going to have to be used extensively to keep track of these cloaked bases so I would ask that CCP puts in a system that automatically makes a BM of the tower for the person that anchored and/or onlined the tower or at least the first time it was cloaked. Then again this is Eve and if you cloaked your tower warped off and did not BM it then you may deserve to lose the tower, or at least until it ran out of fuel and became visible again.
There you have it cloaky POSs the thing that could create a truly new profession in Eve.
More on POSs to come, mainly on my ideas on how to find the hidden bastards.
Zeth
Hot Button Issue - Off Grid Boosting
OK this is mainly a response to Poetic Stanziel post about off grid boosting but I will throw my thoughts on it as well. Now, if you have not taken a look at P.S.'s post please do it now because I will be referencing it.
First off, the problem: Off-grid boosting provides a significant upper hand to the pilots using them. It comes in two forms: 1) Off grid boosting usually done in a cloaky unprobable t3 or in large fleet fights a command ship with a cloak that prays no one finds it. 2) Boosting from the insides of a POS force field making the boosting ship completely impervious.
Now the first version I find it a perfectly viable tactic that should be used by solo pilots or fleets of any size. It has the risk of moving an under tanked and very week T3 thru enemy space and then setting up a boosting spot, and it limits the pilot/fleet to operating in one system unless they want to loose the boost. Now, the whole unprobable thing should be looked at so that ships can not become unprobable further increasing the risk of T3 boosting.
The second version on the other hand should be nerfed, nerfed straight out of the game. Boosting from inside a POS shield is risk free to the booster and only plays a risk to the poor chap you has to set up the POS that is being used as the safe house. There is one exception to this nerf and that is mining boosting which is only viable in null sec from a Roq in indy mode (I know RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RISK!!!!) but that is a topic for another time. Combat boosting should be forced out of the POS and into open space where the actual ship boosting can be taken out. If you want a booster then your enemy should be able take the booster out and level the playing field.
Poetic Stanziel put out two possible nerfs to the system. The first, which I will call increasing returns or IS, is simply the smaller the fleet the less bonuses are given out. Read his post for a full explanation of his system. I have to respectfully disagree with this idea in the light that it will completely nerf off grid boosting for any small gang warfare. Small gangs should want the boost, they want the upper hand and they should have it if they invest into it.
His second idea of a "dead zone" around and in POSs is actually a very unique and well thought out. It will make it so POS boosting cannot happen and it will preemptively nerf sitting right outside of the shields and moving in as soon as shit hits the fan. The biggest problem with this is that it forces off grid boosting by forcing the aggressor to leave their boost off grid or far away from the POS because the POS will negate their boost as well. A more complex and harder to implement nerf will be, the boost of ships able to go into the shields are the only one shut off while boost from ships that cannot enter the POS are left alone. This will leave the defenders at a loss tho and give the aggressors a major upper hand.
A bit more elegant solution would be to make it so that while in the shields boost do not work at all but if outside of the shield and on grid boost only effect those that are also on grid. This will making boosting out of a POS completely nerfed but boosting by a POS will still work the aggressors/defenders.
So there you have it. To nerf boosting, or not to nerf boosting that is one of the hot issues in Eve.
Final note, and this is in my comments on P.S. blog, the upcoming POS changes could nerf POS boosting completely if they remove the FF, which I feel they should not, but it may happen.
Zeth
First off, the problem: Off-grid boosting provides a significant upper hand to the pilots using them. It comes in two forms: 1) Off grid boosting usually done in a cloaky unprobable t3 or in large fleet fights a command ship with a cloak that prays no one finds it. 2) Boosting from the insides of a POS force field making the boosting ship completely impervious.
Now the first version I find it a perfectly viable tactic that should be used by solo pilots or fleets of any size. It has the risk of moving an under tanked and very week T3 thru enemy space and then setting up a boosting spot, and it limits the pilot/fleet to operating in one system unless they want to loose the boost. Now, the whole unprobable thing should be looked at so that ships can not become unprobable further increasing the risk of T3 boosting.
The second version on the other hand should be nerfed, nerfed straight out of the game. Boosting from inside a POS shield is risk free to the booster and only plays a risk to the poor chap you has to set up the POS that is being used as the safe house. There is one exception to this nerf and that is mining boosting which is only viable in null sec from a Roq in indy mode (I know RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RISK!!!!) but that is a topic for another time. Combat boosting should be forced out of the POS and into open space where the actual ship boosting can be taken out. If you want a booster then your enemy should be able take the booster out and level the playing field.
Poetic Stanziel put out two possible nerfs to the system. The first, which I will call increasing returns or IS, is simply the smaller the fleet the less bonuses are given out. Read his post for a full explanation of his system. I have to respectfully disagree with this idea in the light that it will completely nerf off grid boosting for any small gang warfare. Small gangs should want the boost, they want the upper hand and they should have it if they invest into it.
His second idea of a "dead zone" around and in POSs is actually a very unique and well thought out. It will make it so POS boosting cannot happen and it will preemptively nerf sitting right outside of the shields and moving in as soon as shit hits the fan. The biggest problem with this is that it forces off grid boosting by forcing the aggressor to leave their boost off grid or far away from the POS because the POS will negate their boost as well. A more complex and harder to implement nerf will be, the boost of ships able to go into the shields are the only one shut off while boost from ships that cannot enter the POS are left alone. This will leave the defenders at a loss tho and give the aggressors a major upper hand.
A bit more elegant solution would be to make it so that while in the shields boost do not work at all but if outside of the shield and on grid boost only effect those that are also on grid. This will making boosting out of a POS completely nerfed but boosting by a POS will still work the aggressors/defenders.
So there you have it. To nerf boosting, or not to nerf boosting that is one of the hot issues in Eve.
Final note, and this is in my comments on P.S. blog, the upcoming POS changes could nerf POS boosting completely if they remove the FF, which I feel they should not, but it may happen.
Zeth
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Fit - ASB Scimi/Logi
So today I was chilling on Eve not really doing anything and about to log off when Sard Caid starts up a conversation in his in-game stream channel Fragbox. For those of you who do not know, Sard streams solo and small gang PVP rather often and I have recently discovered it. It is great fun watching him run around trying to kill stuff while talking and trolling with people all over Eve.
Now we were talking about killing shit when someone brought up the question of, "How would you fit out an ASB Scimi". This got us all thinking, an asb scimi, could work....... The whole concept of the ASB (Ancillary Shield Booster) for pvp tanking is really taking off and many interesting ideas are coming out of it. ASB's are just like standard shield boosters but instead of running purely off capacitor, they can also be run off of cap boosters making them a hybrid of the cap booster and shield booster mods. They have become extremely popular with solo pvp due to the fact that they can rep waaaaayyyy to much hp and not rely on cap at all. The biggest down fall is the 60 second reload time, in which you are left completely exposed due to the lack of buffer. So we started talking about what if logi, a very cap intensive ship, used an ASB to keep it alive. This was of course assuming you are the only logi and it is in small gang format (2-10 pilots). The first fit that was thrown out looked liked this:
[X-L ASB Scimi]
Beta Reactor Control: Reaction Control I
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Large Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I
10MN Afterburner II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Large 'Atonement' Ward Projector
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
First thoughts are, "UMMMMM WAAAYY to many fitting mods". I mean, 4 RCUs and two ACRs just to get it within the +5% PG implant range.... That is usually the first sign of a bad fitting but, hey, it was first attempt that needed refinement. So I suggested removing the atonement shield transfer and switching the meta RCU to a PDS. This will give it slightly more ehp and remove the need for a +5 pg implant. Most scimi only run with three reps anyways as it is usually the only way to fit it without completely gimping the fit. With this many fitting mods though you can fit the X-L ASB which gives your scimi an amazing pulse tank, which is really the whole point.
The afterburner was the other problem that we had. Scimis can work very well with an AB, in fact I prefer the AB scimi in a fleet than the MWD version, but for small gang warfare the MWD versions ability to dictate range is highly important. With it you can stay 60k away from the fight leaving you out of range of anything other then T3 BCs and battleships, but with the already very tight fitting there was no way to fit a MWD to that so I came up with something a bit different.
[Large ASB Scimi]
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Conjunctive Ladar ECCM Scanning Array I
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
[empty high slot]
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Now this has the MWD and no RCUs or ACRs but still has PDS which are not that bad because they help with cap and tank, but it dropped the X-L ASB for a large ASB which has considerably tank... The large ASB is not necessarily that bad tho. The main reason we were trying to fit a scimi this way was to counter act sentry guns in low sec and this fit does help tank the sentries at least until boosters run out and you have to reload. It also has higher resistance then that XL-ASB with the dual invuls and ECCM helping to reduce the chance of jams. Still not cap stable but stable with two reps and the MWD off, which it should only be on if you are getting chased down.
The question then came up, is the ASB scimi better then a normal buffer scimi? Is trying to active tank the sentries and maybe even more worth the lost of buffer? The first thing that comes to mind is the buffer. The scimi already has a very low amount of shields only 2314 raw shield hp with level 5 skills, and well that really isn't a lot.... In fact, that is getting alphaed range of low.... So, with that low shield buffer would an ASB even be able to get its reps going before the shields were completely gone? Second is the 60 second reload time. If you are only able to be on field when you have the booster loaded that means that every time you run out of charges you either warp off or jump out and then you are gone for 60 secs and some one is going to die in those 60 seconds. These two things are generally very bad for logi. Being able to be alphaed by something large or at least dealt enough damage that the next shot is taking you out and have your very own self jammer taking you out of the fight for 60 seconds are not worth it in my eyes. A normal buffer logi will have way more EHP thus making it so it can stay on the field longer anyways and if it does get targeted by the sentries a quick warp out and warp back in is usually less time then the 60+ seconds of waiting for a reload. It is still a very interesting concept and one of the reasons I love Eve so much, but I am finding it hard to see a reason for it....
Now we were talking about killing shit when someone brought up the question of, "How would you fit out an ASB Scimi". This got us all thinking, an asb scimi, could work....... The whole concept of the ASB (Ancillary Shield Booster) for pvp tanking is really taking off and many interesting ideas are coming out of it. ASB's are just like standard shield boosters but instead of running purely off capacitor, they can also be run off of cap boosters making them a hybrid of the cap booster and shield booster mods. They have become extremely popular with solo pvp due to the fact that they can rep waaaaayyyy to much hp and not rely on cap at all. The biggest down fall is the 60 second reload time, in which you are left completely exposed due to the lack of buffer. So we started talking about what if logi, a very cap intensive ship, used an ASB to keep it alive. This was of course assuming you are the only logi and it is in small gang format (2-10 pilots). The first fit that was thrown out looked liked this:
[X-L ASB Scimi]
Beta Reactor Control: Reaction Control I
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Large Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I
10MN Afterburner II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Large 'Atonement' Ward Projector
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
First thoughts are, "UMMMMM WAAAYY to many fitting mods". I mean, 4 RCUs and two ACRs just to get it within the +5% PG implant range.... That is usually the first sign of a bad fitting but, hey, it was first attempt that needed refinement. So I suggested removing the atonement shield transfer and switching the meta RCU to a PDS. This will give it slightly more ehp and remove the need for a +5 pg implant. Most scimi only run with three reps anyways as it is usually the only way to fit it without completely gimping the fit. With this many fitting mods though you can fit the X-L ASB which gives your scimi an amazing pulse tank, which is really the whole point.
The afterburner was the other problem that we had. Scimis can work very well with an AB, in fact I prefer the AB scimi in a fleet than the MWD version, but for small gang warfare the MWD versions ability to dictate range is highly important. With it you can stay 60k away from the fight leaving you out of range of anything other then T3 BCs and battleships, but with the already very tight fitting there was no way to fit a MWD to that so I came up with something a bit different.
[Large ASB Scimi]
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 200
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Conjunctive Ladar ECCM Scanning Array I
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
[empty high slot]
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Now this has the MWD and no RCUs or ACRs but still has PDS which are not that bad because they help with cap and tank, but it dropped the X-L ASB for a large ASB which has considerably tank... The large ASB is not necessarily that bad tho. The main reason we were trying to fit a scimi this way was to counter act sentry guns in low sec and this fit does help tank the sentries at least until boosters run out and you have to reload. It also has higher resistance then that XL-ASB with the dual invuls and ECCM helping to reduce the chance of jams. Still not cap stable but stable with two reps and the MWD off, which it should only be on if you are getting chased down.
The question then came up, is the ASB scimi better then a normal buffer scimi? Is trying to active tank the sentries and maybe even more worth the lost of buffer? The first thing that comes to mind is the buffer. The scimi already has a very low amount of shields only 2314 raw shield hp with level 5 skills, and well that really isn't a lot.... In fact, that is getting alphaed range of low.... So, with that low shield buffer would an ASB even be able to get its reps going before the shields were completely gone? Second is the 60 second reload time. If you are only able to be on field when you have the booster loaded that means that every time you run out of charges you either warp off or jump out and then you are gone for 60 secs and some one is going to die in those 60 seconds. These two things are generally very bad for logi. Being able to be alphaed by something large or at least dealt enough damage that the next shot is taking you out and have your very own self jammer taking you out of the fight for 60 seconds are not worth it in my eyes. A normal buffer logi will have way more EHP thus making it so it can stay on the field longer anyways and if it does get targeted by the sentries a quick warp out and warp back in is usually less time then the 60+ seconds of waiting for a reload. It is still a very interesting concept and one of the reasons I love Eve so much, but I am finding it hard to see a reason for it....
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
CSM Minutes - POS Rework Part 1
Well here we go, POS's, or how most southern null sec players see them "ATM machines for the North!!!!! YAY!!!!" More on Tech later but now I am going to write about what was talked about in the CSM minutes.
Now, POS as they are, are rather boring and poorly designed. The tower with a shield and then having in-shield and out-of-shield structures make for clusters of structures with a lot of wasted space that is neither good to look at nor functional. The new system plans to remove the force field and make it so the central structure, will continue referring to that as a tower, with other structures physically attached to it expanding outward in some way. Now how they are attached to each other and/or direction(s) you can expand was not really iterated on but hey why not speculate wildly?!
So let the speculation begin. I have two ideas on how this will work. The first and easiest way to do is make it so the tower and all other structures have dedicated mounting points that act as the points were more structures can attached allowing you expand outward. Now this system is more "realistic" but it will limit the creative aspect of this new system which CCP seemed intent on letting players design POS's into all shorts of shapes (yay for more penis in Eve). The mounting point system may limit creativity but will make it easier for players to see where they can add more structures. So mounts add to realism and make it easier for the less artfully inclined of us but limit creativity.
The second system would simple let you mount one structure to another structure anywhere along any side making is so there is no limit to where things can be mounted. This is very unrealistic (or at least in my mind it is) but would allow players to make the giant penis or a mother bee (not sure if thats what the goons call it) and all manner of other shapes. I like this second approach more then the first. Now, I am sure some players will go, "BUT BUT BUT THATS NOT IT WOULD WORK IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!" well sorry to say but space ships are not submarines..... Being able to mount anything to anything else is not realist I know but it is easier to implement on CCPs end and less work for CCP means we get this faster which I for one really want this to come out. I have set up and maintained many POSs over my time in Eve and these changes would make it more interesting then the current anchor/online system we have now.
So for the rest of the blog I am going to assume that CCP will be using the second system. Now the next part that I want to talk about with the POS rework in this post is the possible removal of the force field or shield. This is something that I think should not be completely gone. What do I mean by completely gone? Well, and this was stated in the minutes, that the shield should still be possible but would now be an add-on/structure that when online it would do the exact same thing that current POS shield does. Makes a bubble that people with the password or the correct standings will allow you to pass. The only reason I still want the bubble is the same reason the CSM still want it, for fleets. POS at the moment act as safe havens for large fleets giving them a place to form up at or run too if things get to hot for them. There is no other place for fleets to form up at that is relatively safe and accessible. For those of you who do not know, when you form up a large fleet in Eve you usually do not do it on station, you tell everyone what ships to get into and then you form up on the POS. This allows the FC to see what ships he/she has and this is very important. So keep the current force field but make it so that it takes up either a lot of CPU and/or PG to use making it so it will become something that is only used for staging towers.
Thats all for now. More on the POS rework later.
Now, POS as they are, are rather boring and poorly designed. The tower with a shield and then having in-shield and out-of-shield structures make for clusters of structures with a lot of wasted space that is neither good to look at nor functional. The new system plans to remove the force field and make it so the central structure, will continue referring to that as a tower, with other structures physically attached to it expanding outward in some way. Now how they are attached to each other and/or direction(s) you can expand was not really iterated on but hey why not speculate wildly?!
So let the speculation begin. I have two ideas on how this will work. The first and easiest way to do is make it so the tower and all other structures have dedicated mounting points that act as the points were more structures can attached allowing you expand outward. Now this system is more "realistic" but it will limit the creative aspect of this new system which CCP seemed intent on letting players design POS's into all shorts of shapes (yay for more penis in Eve). The mounting point system may limit creativity but will make it easier for players to see where they can add more structures. So mounts add to realism and make it easier for the less artfully inclined of us but limit creativity.
The second system would simple let you mount one structure to another structure anywhere along any side making is so there is no limit to where things can be mounted. This is very unrealistic (or at least in my mind it is) but would allow players to make the giant penis or a mother bee (not sure if thats what the goons call it) and all manner of other shapes. I like this second approach more then the first. Now, I am sure some players will go, "BUT BUT BUT THATS NOT IT WOULD WORK IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!" well sorry to say but space ships are not submarines..... Being able to mount anything to anything else is not realist I know but it is easier to implement on CCPs end and less work for CCP means we get this faster which I for one really want this to come out. I have set up and maintained many POSs over my time in Eve and these changes would make it more interesting then the current anchor/online system we have now.
So for the rest of the blog I am going to assume that CCP will be using the second system. Now the next part that I want to talk about with the POS rework in this post is the possible removal of the force field or shield. This is something that I think should not be completely gone. What do I mean by completely gone? Well, and this was stated in the minutes, that the shield should still be possible but would now be an add-on/structure that when online it would do the exact same thing that current POS shield does. Makes a bubble that people with the password or the correct standings will allow you to pass. The only reason I still want the bubble is the same reason the CSM still want it, for fleets. POS at the moment act as safe havens for large fleets giving them a place to form up at or run too if things get to hot for them. There is no other place for fleets to form up at that is relatively safe and accessible. For those of you who do not know, when you form up a large fleet in Eve you usually do not do it on station, you tell everyone what ships to get into and then you form up on the POS. This allows the FC to see what ships he/she has and this is very important. So keep the current force field but make it so that it takes up either a lot of CPU and/or PG to use making it so it will become something that is only used for staging towers.
Thats all for now. More on the POS rework later.
Monday, August 6, 2012
CMS Minutes - Thoughts
Hello fellow pilots.
This one is going to be a bit fast (gotta get to bed....) but here are some of my thoughts on the last CSM minutes.
First the minutes are really really long... I spent an entire afternoon reading them and that was only the pieces I cared about. Now this extreme length is great in many aspects mainly the added transparency and seeing that the "Devs" and the CSM seem to get along in these meetings spending a good amount of time joking around (loved the part about the Sabre and yes that is true) is great. I was very happy to see that these meetings are not just the devs saying this is what we are doing, got it? ok, good, now what do you think, ok got it, NEXT! Now the added length also means that I spent a good amount of time fishing thru less then useful information for a tid bit or section of stuff that made me go "YES!", and I have to agree with Jester that these minutes were too long and some of the "jokes" could be taken out and made more streamlined.
Ok now that that is out of the way the parts of the minutes that I liked and will being writing up on.
1. POS rework
2. Tech/Null Sec
3. Crimewatch
4. Ship balancing
5. Industry/mining
The POS rework and Null sec being my favorite parts both of which I have many thoughts on and am greatly looking forward to jumping into these areas in more detail. The other three areas are of great interest to me and I will be writing about them to share my ideas and get your input on them. I know that the Crimewatch rework is creating some great controversy and I can say I am rather enjoying all the tears =D. As for my stands on these, well you will just have to wait until I write up on them.
Talk to you then
Zeth
This one is going to be a bit fast (gotta get to bed....) but here are some of my thoughts on the last CSM minutes.
First the minutes are really really long... I spent an entire afternoon reading them and that was only the pieces I cared about. Now this extreme length is great in many aspects mainly the added transparency and seeing that the "Devs" and the CSM seem to get along in these meetings spending a good amount of time joking around (loved the part about the Sabre and yes that is true) is great. I was very happy to see that these meetings are not just the devs saying this is what we are doing, got it? ok, good, now what do you think, ok got it, NEXT! Now the added length also means that I spent a good amount of time fishing thru less then useful information for a tid bit or section of stuff that made me go "YES!", and I have to agree with Jester that these minutes were too long and some of the "jokes" could be taken out and made more streamlined.
Ok now that that is out of the way the parts of the minutes that I liked and will being writing up on.
1. POS rework
2. Tech/Null Sec
3. Crimewatch
4. Ship balancing
5. Industry/mining
The POS rework and Null sec being my favorite parts both of which I have many thoughts on and am greatly looking forward to jumping into these areas in more detail. The other three areas are of great interest to me and I will be writing about them to share my ideas and get your input on them. I know that the Crimewatch rework is creating some great controversy and I can say I am rather enjoying all the tears =D. As for my stands on these, well you will just have to wait until I write up on them.
Talk to you then
Zeth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)