Ship Balance Feedback

[dusty ibex]

Slowcats could not exist in 2025 due to separation of FAX and combat carriers just putting that out there.

[rancid parcel]

also on light fighters, they are wildly expensive for essentially being ammo

[dusty ibex]

Light fighters also have the same application as LR fighters which is hilarious because LR fighters do 2-3x the damage or more.

[rancid parcel]

they either need some massive overhaul buffs, like adding a single heavy toob, or gila-esque light fighter hull buffs, or they need to be reworked to be a totally different capital platform that isnt competing with dreads and supers in a traditional combat role

[dusty ibex]

Mm i advocate for a new skill to train for fighter application

[rancid parcel]

this is not true, LR fighters have similar base application to rage torpedos. light fighters are better yes, but their damage sucks and they struggle to apply to anything smaller than a battleship fully

or i should call them fibos, since thats what they are

SSF, fibos, and lights

[dusty ibex]

Hmm last I checked they were quite similar

I’m not talking about acap fighters

[rancid parcel]

lemme use gallente as an example

[dusty ibex]

I had them simmed on a Nyx a bit ago and LR and Lights were very similar in explosions radius and velocity? Lights were slightly better but not much.

Perhaps I’m wrong and bad

[rancid parcel]

T2 firbolgs (lights) have a 185m and 105m/s on their main weapon. the t2 anateus fibo has 570m and 80m/s.

[rancid parcel]

might also be looking at the lights missile attack

which is similar to a fibos main weapon at 400m and 70m/s

[dusty ibex]

Oh yeah I got pyfad

Had wrong ability checked

[rancid parcel]

happens

[dusty ibex]

My b

Lights still suck against everything not aBC/BB

[rancid parcel]

exactly

[dusty ibex]

💯

[rancid parcel]

So I say there’s a few options, not all exclusive

Add hull level gila-esque buffs for light fighters

Add a single heavy toob to give them more options, damage, and punch up

Rework fighter application so it’s not poop

Overhaul carriers entirely to a different niche, like capital ewar platform

Or even give them their own version of a siege core, so they can choose to commit to grid and get tank and damage benefits, but they aren’t totally reliant on it like a dread to not be defenseless and useless

[spare tangle]

Clearly the answer is give fighters warp drives so you can use them off grind (joke clearly)

[limpid rapids]

They already have warp drives

For what that’s worth

Both pre and post citadel rework

They just only use them currently in gameplay during recovery post-citadel rework

[dusty ibex]

What would the Gila buff look like?

[fleet mesa]

As a man said before - they have their niche, so you cant poop with carriers only with corp umbrella.

But getting truly to the point - why fighters can’t have decent tracking, speed to be able defend ship against all type of threats. Let’s be honest - ship 20+ bill should be able to defend itself.

Idea of their own siege module with specific bonuses to carriers is great. That will give a bit more flexibility to adjust them without touching other dreads.

[sonic pebble]

OR we can take a lesson from the Petroglyph Star Wars: Empire at War series.

Where some ships have special abilities to either buff their damage/defense.

And we look at the fighters on a case by case basis...and adjust their abilities to fill various tactical roles.

[fleet mesa]

Imagine scriptable core - one cycle it can be defensive another offensive

[sonic pebble]

Possible as well

Although scriptable is always interesting...because it depends on the cycle in order to swap it.

all abouttiming.

[rancid parcel]

I meant how the gila has a hull intrinsic that giga buffs its drones

[dusty ibex]

Oh yes but like curious as to what they would look like on a carrier/super

Because it should go without saying those bonuses shouldn’t apply to Caiman/Komodo that would be too much added to them I feel.

Rn Revenant is only carrier/super w: application bonus so perhaps we take that and tone it down a bit and add it to the other supers and then tone down a bit more for carriers?

Or fuck it add it to the guri caps too. They are expensive enough to maybe warrant it

[ebon turret]

yes creation of FAX was a mistake

agreed

go back to combat carriers and combat refitting

@fleet mesa

But getting truly to the point - why fighters can’t have decent tracking, speed to be able defend ship against all type of threats. Let’s be honest - ship 20+ bill should be able to defend itself.

because you have created a ship without a niche that then becomes the default daily driver for everyone

Let’s be honest - ship 20+ bill should be able to defend itself.
again, marauder worth 20b gating through uedama will die to 50 catalysts

thats called skill issue, dont be bad

[worn dock]

combat refitting 😭

"wow look there's this mechanic with a high skill ceiling, better remove it"

[ebon turret]

yep

🙂

i mean u cant be surprised it happens to most games eventually

devs cater to lowest common denominator

why have a differentiator between good players and bad players when you can just remove the high skill shit and then everyone can feel like a good player

[worn dock]

why can't we beat multiple blingy carriers constantly refitting off each other with our dirt cheap t1 battlecruiser doctrine 😡

[restive bay]

hunting was too hard so we made the capital ratting site show on the map and overview, response fleets were too hard though so we made them stationary on a grid that players can choose so all you need to do is warp a cyno in

[sonic pebble]

So you want the ability to morph on grid to any threat.

I would think that wouldn't be a good idea from a balance perspective.
I can understand "reshipping" from a carrier/cargo ship with hulls.
But being able to adapt very much on the fly literally...would mean heavier handed nerfs overall.

I can understand super logi...but maybe the refitting on the fly...umm might need some counters.

[ebon turret]

milint you started playing after combat refitting was removed, so more than ever, please do be quiet

you are, as they say, out of your element

[dapper ruin]

isnt he always tho

[sonic pebble]

I was pointing to ESI...on his point.
There is always something that goes a bit further than expected...and has unintended consequences.

[steep needle]

yea

[worn dock]

we already know what the consequences of combat refitting are because we used to have it

[jagged panther]

Honestly “3 carriers constantly refitting off each other” sounds like a dumb as hell mechanic/meta

Like if you’re gonna make them good, fine but I would rather that not be the way because it just seems like a dumb gameplay paradigm

[worn dock]

it’s not

it’s dope

[jagged panther]

I’m sure it’s effective

But it seems dumb also and that’s why I don’t like it lol

Opinions at the end of the day

[dusty ibex]

Combat refitting shouldn’t be a thing. Need weapons timer to zero to refit, keep it that way.

Slowcats were oppressive yes. They are impossible to exist anymore due to FAX.

CCP could turbo buff carriers and you still wouldn’t see them used commonly outside of bloc fleets due to price.

[fleet mesa]

T3 destroyers actually have that mechanics and nobody complains about “combat refit”. Why carriers can’t have the same mechanics?

Again, you all the time take some extreme examples and use it as evidence why idea so bad!

I’d love to see T3 battlecruisers, T3 battleships - why not? More flexible, with opportunity play not niche role but wider range within the same hull.

Of course:
t3 destroyers - you can change their bonuses on-fly
T3 cruisers - you have to prefit but there is some range of options (logi, rockets, turrets + systems)
T3 battlecruisers / battleships - I’d love to see even more sophisticated solution or combination of previous two

Regards skills - damn, Eve online doesn’t have ceiling in piloting skill. That game has so complex mechanics and so many combinations that even simplified version would still be over complex for gen z …

[steep needle]

whilst only a fraction of the playerbase is made up by a gen z a large percentage of all the tournament players are

idk chief

[dusty ibex]

I’m the start of gen z 😛

[jagged panther]

T3Ds dont really have that mechanic. They have modes, sure. T3Cs are flexible, sure.

But neither can combat refit

[rancid parcel]

supers dont deserve a buff like carriers do.

but it would go a long way if all carrier based craft like you mentioned got an application buff per level of X

[rancid parcel]

yeah cause how dare the person who drops billions of isk worth of slow vulnerable capital ship on grid be rewarded for it

they only exist to be my loot pinata and nothing more

[ebon turret]

Tales of the Pepege

me want big ship me want use big expensive ship is my right!!! reeeeeeeee

me big ship pwn all noob small ships!!!!!!!!!

biggest ship best and eat all others!

small ship noob player idiots run in fear from me in big ship

[spare tangle]

Rework carriers into what world of warships made them (Joke)

[rancid parcel]

yaknow this is probably a super spicy take but someone in a capital class carrier when faced with a few dudes in cruisers and maybe a dictor, the carrier should win

crazy idea that

[ebon turret]

yes it is a crazy idea

because capital ships are group assets that should be effective at capital and structure based warfare and ineffective at subcap warfare

[rancid parcel]

we are far past that ideal lol

looks at HAW

[ebon turret]

yes, haw dreads are also a mistake

if you make carriers good against subcaps what reason is there to use anything else

[rancid parcel]

HAW dreads are fun but it really only exacerbates the issue with carriers

as in everything else is better than them

[ebon turret]

ok, better to be underpowered than overpowered

carriers have niches

i think theyre fine

[rancid parcel]

why dont people yeet capitals around as it stands now? supers are monsters both acap and subcap with the tank to match, but theyre too fat, slow, and expensive to be worth yeeting all over. why dont people yeet HAW dreads all over? same thing.

thats the way capitals roll

[ebon turret]

conduit is a carrier-specific niche
they are fine on defensive timers against battleship blobs
they run L5s effectively

theyre fine

[ebon turret]

'trust me everything is simply too expensive let us farm for another 3 months and we will fight i promise' - nullsec, every day for the past 5 years

[rancid parcel]

they run L5s effectively because they can afford to sit there and facetank it, but they get worse application AND damage compared to even a marauder, which is hilarious and sad

conduit? sure i guess, thats one such recent addition.

[rancid parcel]

i dont exactly see everywhere else in the game chock full of HAWs getting dropped on every single occasion and turning out to be super oppressive, i wonder why that is

relegating a unique ship class to a hyper specific niche that is one of a few things doesnt feel very good. why would we want less variety in a game like eve?

[ebon turret]

because when you siege up your haw you're asking for an escalation to be dropped on your head, unlike a carrier

[rancid parcel]

exactly

hence the whole point of this thread for people to spitball and talk about potential changes for carrier s

[ebon turret]

sure let's delete faxes and bring back combat carriers and combat refitting

i agree

im just adamantly against 'buff fighters so they apply'

[rancid parcel]

i personally think them getting their own version of siege that gives damage and tank buffs would be good, so they can choose to commit to grid but not being crippled as a dread out of siege is if they choose to remain mobile

[eternal hound]

i mean shit, give carriers the ability to lock themself in place to up their application up for the duration. then they can choose to risk beating the small gang, but being at bigger risk of the drop

there are tons of options.

[rancid parcel]

literally

or even something radical like removing them from the traditional combat role.

make em the capital ewar platform

so many things they could do with them

[eternal hound]

IMO doing nothing and leaving them to be super costly and suck in most cases is just silly. i get you miss the old days, but combat refitting was in fact insane and shouldnt come back in the same form. maybe in amore limited form (like T3D modes but not refit.

[ebon turret]

better than buffing them to be oppressive

[eternal hound]

no one said to do so

no one

you are assuming thats what is being said. just try proposing OPTIONS

[rancid parcel]

there is a difference between being viable and oppressive.

[eternal hound]

stop shutting discussion down XD

give ideas and work with us haha

[rancid parcel]

as it stands dreads are better in every way when it comes to bringing out the big guns. if you dont want big guns? marauders get more damage (lol) and still better application...than a fighter based ship

i do agree that there is a fine line between buffing them to be good, and buffing them to be opressive

which they absolutely could be if they go out the wazoo with changes

[eternal hound]

I think the idea of going creative and keeping their combat role limited and giving them unique support roles would be an option to. i jsut have no examples to give atm too tired.

just make them decent for something mildly useful XD

[rancid parcel]

in an optimal world, carriers represent force augmentation and amplification..

[eternal hound]

hell go batshit crazy, throw insane ideas out, something could turn out to not be as insane as you think:

• Launch a fighter that can attach on to other ships an add a gun or ewar button to that players bar.
• Mini drone swarm "fighter" low damage, but acceptable application on smaller ships, harder to shoot down and defang.
• a "seige" option that boosts fighter application at cost of lockign you in place (maybe as a fleet boost that only applies to medium and smaller weapon types too to a lesser degree?)

have fun toss shit out and maybe someone could take one of the ideas refine it, and a dev gets wind who knows. XD

[spare tangle]

Drone swarm fighter thats just 10 normal drones

big fucking missile in the fighter launcher tubes that just bursts into a big drone swarm

[eternal hound]

oooh, what if the drone swarm cant be shot to be killed, but can not be recovered, making it one time use ammo

[coral night]

Hmm.... what to do about the Apoc.... Well, here's a crazy idea:

The Apocalypse
The issue is the Apoc is ....it's bad at just about everything. With beams it has to sacrifice so much tank it isn't worth it. With pulse it can buffer tank, but has very low DPS. It can't active tank well without an active tank bonus or resist bonus. I guess, for a battleship, its not too slow. But that's about it. It's got 4 mids, but one of them really needs to be occupied by a medium cap booster. It's got a long-range weapon bonus but without the DPS to take advantage of it. It's just.... not great at a lot of stuff. For reference, it kinda barely beats an artillery tempest's DPS against something with high angular velocity due to it's tracking bonus.

What if we just substantially increased its buffer tank and DPS? Well, that wouldn't do. Long-range ships with lots of tank and damage tend to oppress the meta. To be honest, I think this ship needs to have its niche redefined.

Here's the crazy part: What if we make the Apoc like an arty Tempest, but slightly slower, slightly tanker, slightly less volley, higher rate of fire, and better tracking. What would it take to do that?

Proposed Changes:
Amarr battleship bonus (per skill level)

1. 20% bonus to large energy turret damage (results in 2x damage)
2. 8% penalty to large energy turret rate of fire (results in -40% rate of fire)
3. 7.5% bonus to large energy turret tracking
   Role bonuses unchanged.

What you get with that is something that, with Tachyon Beal Laser IIs, deals just about as much volley with IN multifrequency as a Tempest does with RF EMP. With -50% rate of fire, the rates of fire will be matched. However, with -40% rate of fire, the Apoc’s DPS will get slightly better than it was before. In a large fleet, the Apoc fleet will be able to volly people off the grid slightly faster than a similar fleet of Tempests will. Because each Tempest has higher volley, the minimum fleet numbers needed to volley something off the field with Apocs will be higher than a fleet of Tempests.

The only thing that is interesting is the use of Aurora, which can volley better than the Tempest can with Tremor at 220km. However, to lock out that far, the Apoc would need to swap tracking computers for sensor boosters or trade other slots for tank. So, there’s an opportunity for the Apoc to out-class the Tempest at long ranges provided it had the right mods fit and was receiving info links but only if it made other sacrifices. All graphs are with Amarr battleship level zero (no hull optimal bonus) no heat, and no drones.

How’s the DPS with pulse lasers? This graph is also with Amarr battleship at level zero. As you can see, the Apoc could use some help. This is why I suggested a -40% to rate of fire instead of -50% rate of fire.

Let’s talk fitting. The Apoc… needs more. When both fits use damnation links, the Tempest has 237k EHP compared to the Apoc’s 197k. That’s…. not sufficient. However, with pulse lasers, the Apoc easily fits what it needs and gets 254k tank, so it’s really the powergrid and CPU hungry Tachyon’s which are the issue. What I’d do is add only 7% more CPU and 1% more powergrid. Shown below is a fit which utilizes that. This forces you to do some fitting trades when fitting Tachyon Beam Laser IIs brought on by a lack of powergrid and CPU, but you still can fit what you need to be comparable to the Tempest. Also, you might notice when comparing this fit to the Tempest that it lacks the mids that the Tempest has. The cycle time helps a lot for the cap usage for the Apoc, but the Apoc will still need a cap booster. This means that the Tempest can support two more mid slots than the Apoc, so the Tempest has room for EWAR or a sensor booster while the Apoc does not. It seems fair that the Apoc gets a slightly faster cycle time of the Tachyon Beam Laser IIs compensate. If that ends up being lackluster, a further iteration could add 5% to 10% more base armor HP.

......and.... by the way.... lots of ships just got EHP buffs because surgical strike was rolled back. However, ships with high volley didn't get changed. Maybe it's time to look at buffing the volley amounts of large artilleries? Just food for thought.

[worn dock]

large arty alpha didn’t get nerfed when resists were nerfed, why would it need to be buffed when resists are returned to their pre-nerf state

[coral night]

It affects the minimum number of players you need to adequately volley a well-tanked battleship off the field. If this strategy is only viable with a huge number of players, it by definition only benefits large groups.

[worn dock]

good

[coral night]

And since the ability to volley someone off the field can be quite powerful, this is something to be considered.

[worn dock]

volleying stuff off field is dumb and should be hard

making it easier is not good

[coral night]

It's quite funny when someone has a 3b bling mobile and gets poofed off the field regardless of the FAX sitting right next to it 🙂

I mean, you can like it or you can hate it. It's one of the few things that allows players to group up and use economy ships to take out a much more well funded enemy.

[dire flume]

Not as funny as you

[coral night]

But if you are one of those well funded people, I can see why you would be biased against.

Ah yeah, see! I triggered CaseyLP 🙂

[dire flume]

No that was a compliment

[sonic pebble]

Maybe some sort of Fighter Command Bridge module? With a Script?

[rancid parcel]

(yap alert)

Sentinel Module

Consumption Type:
Strontium Clathrates
Consumption Quantity:
120 units
Disallow Activation In Warp:
true
Mass multiplier:
8x
ECM Resistance:
70%
Fighter Velocity Bonus:
150 %
Fighter Squadron Health Bonus:
150 %
Fighter Tracking Bonus:
25 %
Fighter ROF Bonus:
-50 %
Fighter Missile Damage Bonus:
150 %
Fighter Damage Bonus:
250 %
Remote Repair Impedance Bonus:
-99 %
Disallow Tethering:
true
Armor Repairer / Shield Booster Duration Bonus:
-20 %
Armor Repairer / Shield Booster Amount Bonus:
50 %
Sensor Dampener Resistance Bonus:
-40 %
Remote Assistance Impedance Bonus:
-40 %
Command Burst Range and Strength Bonus:
25 %
Disallow Docking:
true

Reroutes power from the propulsion systems to the ship's sensor and broadcast nodes, as well as empowering a massive array of proprietary upwell quantum of fluid routers. Managed by a shackled AI, this system is able to orchestrate near incomprehensible levels of detailed predictive algorithms, and the sheer bandwidth provided by this system is transmitted to fighters in real time, allowing for significantly improved accuracy and damage to weak points.

In addition, the lack of power to locomotion systems means that neither standard propulsion nor warp travel are available to the ship nor are you allowed to dock until out of sentinel mode.

Notes:

• A sentinel module requires Strontium clathrates to run and operate effectively.
• Bonuses to the Shield Booster and Armor Repairer amount and duration are only applied to Capital sized boosters.
• Only one sentinel module can be fitted to a carrier class ship. The bonuses gained from the Sentinel Module are subject to a stacking penalty when used with other similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship.

[sonic pebble]

I have pointed out the concept of Mer-Cat...Merchant Catapult FIghters as noted in history. So I mean its possible to create a module or some sort of mechanic...that would allow you to "carry" a fighter or fighter squadron...on a ship without a tube. [Although Technically a Gecko is a fighter in and of itself...and quite a few cruisers in game can field Geckos...at least 1. ]

But it would be funny to see a Mistletoe [Hybrid Combo] in game. With the Module allowing you to make some smaller ships carry a much larger threat.

But I think some people would like to see the Escort Carrier Concept...BS or intermediate hull...1 Tube...a few squadrons.

Heck...if we could fit lauch tube to haulers...that would be kind of a funny moment in EVE history. You never know if the unassuming Hauler is carrying a fighter compliment to surprise you with it.

[sonic pebble]

Why not do a Fighter Command Bridge Module that each script adjusts how the Fighters operate?

Script for faster movement, more tank, or harder hitting...etc.

But only one of these modules is available to a Carrier/Super Carrier. So you tailor the fighters to combat situations. Where as your idea is actually interesting because its a much more wide area fleet support option.

Although I would say...either you go fleet support with your module...but fighters don't get bonus...or go fighter command bridge module...buffs the fighters...but your fleet support drops off.

[rancid parcel]

so like t3d flavor of carriers

[sonic pebble]

Well more like T3C

prefitted before combat

bit easier to balance

[rancid parcel]

a bit iffy on capitals because then there would be the tankiest option, and then the wrong options.

[sonic pebble]

And if you want to use a Carrier as a forward reship option...different module.

[nimble sage]

T3B when

[sonic pebble]

With obvious downsides.

[rancid parcel]

we have mini dreads in the form of marauders, and mini whatever in the form of blops with jump drive, wheres my mini carrier

[sonic pebble]

I think T3 tech is going to have to go wider now...probably also T3 ammo and modules...not sure if EVE is ready that.

[nimble sage]

Wot

[rancid parcel]

bro what

[sonic pebble]

T3 ammo...sorry its a zany idea of weapons that apply different effects.

[rancid parcel]

[nimble sage]

Something that is tech III, means it's derived from sleeper tehc

[sonic pebble]

Fire an artillery shell...tags you with stasis webifier [limited time] But you lose dps...if you use that.

[nimble sage]

How tf do you derive sleeper tech into modules

[rancid parcel]

i think thatd be better suited to a weapon system than an ammo type

like a ship that gets that effect from its subsystems

like tech 3 frigates or something

[sonic pebble]

Well, there is all that "Cosmos" stuff in Sleeper Sites...technically that is sleeper tech...but personally T3 modules would be something a bit more unique multirole...or directly interacting with other already established kit.

But...I don't think we are going for that just yet.

But T3 ships...makes more sense.

[rancid parcel]

t3 modules and ammo sound like theyd get way too convoluted way too fast

just keep it with ships

[eternal hound]

still wants the Sisters of Eve Colossus....

[rancid parcel]

[eternal hound]

It's like...a slightly smaller version of the pre fighter carriers... And vertical Soe ship

[sonic pebble]

Well...they could simplify T3 ammo...but its going to be "battlefield adjustment" ammunition. IE not really doing damage...but allowing for ways to force fights in weird ways.

Stasis Webs too short? and Web Drones too slow....fires a Stasis Web Missile or Artillery Shell...much lower than the direct EWAR item...but would give to time to close for tackle...depending on situation.

But yeah...probably a bit too silly.

[sonic pebble]

Is there more details on other colossus? I know of the Angel Cartel one.

[eternal hound]

Please drop the t3 ammo idea....there would be much better ways to implement interesting effects than by invalidating other ammo in existing weapon types

Breacher pods being the Obvious choice but still other ways exist too

[sonic pebble]

I understand what you are saying...but I made sure to actually make it non-DPS or lower DPS option.

But I would rather have combat capable tractor beams before that.

[rancid parcel]

"Extrajudicial Adjudicator"
-Murraya Moder

Gallente Battleship Operation per level:
20% bonus to Warp Scrambler and Warp Disruptor optimal range
Caldari Battleship Operation per level:
10% reduced capacitor need for Shield Boosters

Colossus per level:
40% Missile Damage Bonus
5% bonus to missile explosion radius
10% reduction in Missile Launcher reload time

Role Bonus:
Can fit Colossus Module
Can fit Rapid Torpedo Launcher
Can fit two Shield Command and Information Command burst modules
99% reduction in Rapid Torpedo Launcher powergrid requirements
80% bonus to Rapid Torpedo Launcher rate of fire
400% bonus to missile velocity
50% penalty to missile flight time
50% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue
100% bonus to the benefits of overheating Afterburners, Microwarpdrives, Local Repair Modules, and Resistance Modules

[eternal hound]

Then don't make it ammo in your gun.... Make it any other new special mod lol t3 Ammo just sounds ... annoying

[sonic pebble]

Laughs...well I was entertaining the problem of a laser weapon...firing a graviton beam at a target.

[So like a stasis web...but constantly tagging you.]

XD

That felt too annoying even for me.

Back to the subject of Colossus and Fighters/Drones.

So...if we made this "attachment" module...would we have a size limit?

how small a ship can carry "fighters" probably piggyback?

[eternal hound]

I'd think cruiser.

[sonic pebble]

Seems about right to me.

[eternal hound]

Just cause the actual size would be silly otherwise.

[sonic pebble]

[Well and Haulers would kind of fit in the Cruiser/BS range...which has never been fully ironed out in lore and measurements.]

So maybe even let the Haulers sneak fighters around on "attachment modules"?

[strange basin]

this thing looks cool! it's nice to see more Mordu ships

[eternal hound]

I like the idea of said attached fighter not acting like a fighter anymore or it's targeting being controlled by the carrier anymore. It's like an extra turret on the attached ship that they control lol

[rancid parcel]

too bad we will never get it lol

it, among many other cool ships are serenity/infinity exclusive items

[strange basin]

do WE get any exclusive ships?

[rancid parcel]

heres a few more, including an angels attack dread, concord marauder, the trig marauder (which we have now) a concord carrier and t2 jump bowhead

[rancid parcel]

the upwell haulers...

thats about it

[eternal hound]

I'd imagine if CCP wanted they Could decide to rip them

[rancid parcel]

the dziewanna from serenity and infinity looks almost identical to the babaroga

and it was in that version of the game long before we got the bab

[rancid parcel]

take a guess which is which lol

[eternal hound]

I'd not want it to be too sneaky, I want it to look like there is a big old fighter literally bolted on to the side of the ship in question lol.

So if someone does look at its obvious

[rancid parcel]

also i forgot to mention between the sacribis concord marauder and the dziewanna is a serpentis hictor named vanity that also webs targets with its high slot hictor point

some gabriel art too

[nimble sage]

Wait wasn't dziewanna the babaroga of serenity

[rancid parcel]

it was

[eternal hound]

Maybe that could be carriers new spot....beating up on Colossus class ships real good. .... So ...CCP should give us those so the carriers can have a place again <_<

Lol

(dreads would still just do it better...I know. Just a joke)

[strange basin]

I want something like a heavy dread, not because of game balance, but because we don't have anything that was specifically designed to have 8 capital weapons. Not even the titans can do that.

[silver drum]

Doesn't even a T1 Siege Module make a single gun do the damage of 7 without even factoring in lvl bonuses?

That would be ridiculous.

[strange basin]

It's not about the bonuses, it's about having 8 capital weapons, because it would look cool!

[silver drum]

That'd fucking obliterate even a titan if it could siege

[strange basin]

Then we need to buff the titans.

Also, the siege is a high slot module too, so we can't use it.

[silver drum]

Even a single T2 giga beam can do what, 900 damage tops with Gleam ammo?

[strange basin]

But we can have an assault damage control!

[sonic pebble]

So a Siege Dread...for specific...station deletion correct...maybe a pesky POS.

[sonic pebble]

It makes you wonder about the "inevitable" cross over.

Athough in interesting retrospect...have you seen any oddball ships like the Rogue hulls...that were part of a unique event there...where you kind of went through a variant Abyss and could change weapons of the ship...they had a Stratios hull that had the capacity to be upgraded to missile launchers.

[glossy nimbus]

Dudes, go back to discussing the existing balance. not mythical unicorns from a dead server or ships that don't exist.

[glossy nimbus]

apoc have great role in game. you can build paladin from this one. why you want more ?

btw most of amarr ships underrated and need buffs and rework

[jagged panther]

It is funny to me how "ship balance feedback" scope creeps into "design new ships and gameplay mechanics" so easily

[nimble sage]

it went from "Buff carriers" to here

Hou

[ebon turret]

Absolute classic

It's because these people want new ships to collect, they arent interested in making stories with the existing ones, there needs to always be new ones

[jagged panther]

no create only consume

[devout sage]

I'm waiting and want Titan Navy)

[glossy nimbus]

CCPlz +1 mid slot to amarr cruisers.
Omen/Omen navy/Augoror navy/Maller/Zealot
All of them need 4 mids. You want have 4 modules in mids in pvp. Prop/Point/Web/Capboost. Its minimal gentleman's set that you want.
Also Legion Propulsion - Intercalated Nanofibers needs +1 mid too. For same reasons. Now you cant use any subs other Wake limiter because you havent 4 mids. Both Lasers and HAMLs need Web to have some application.

And plz some love to amarr BS
Apoc now used only for build Paladin.
Apoc navy if you delete this ship, no one will notice.
Abaddon THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY

Also Harbringer Navy still havent capacitor to Guns with 2 damage mods, turned off MWD, dis, stasis, MAAR, with 800 cap sticks

its mostly not about balance but:Amarr shiptree is broken in terms of progression

Everything is fine when we talk about lasers. But when it comes to an alternative branch, things are very bad. we have AF with missiles (also buff Vengeance plz. and nerf Jaguar as tackler) but havent any t1 frigate. We have HAC but havent any t1 cruiser with missiles. We have Command, Interdictor, t3c subsysem but havent any t1 of same size.
Also we have some t1 "droneboats" (h@h@). but havent any t2 droneboat.

Why it can be about balance?
For eg prophecy. Prophecy mostly worst BC in game. Its have 4 missile hardpoints but havent any traits. You dont want use missiles on BC size ship without any traits. You know what I mean? Add some missile traits for prophecy. you can also do same with arbitrator. maybe with dragoon (new Navy destroyers when?)

after all, not so long ago you completely converted Munnin from projectile to missile in order to make an adequate minmatar shiptree. Why not clean up the amarr shiptree?

and in the name of all the gods. I would really like to see the Confessor buff. Its has an incredibly beautiful model, but he's too bad compared to Jacdaw and Hecate in both pvp and pve.

[forest hare]

You need to look at its other bonuses and not just shoehorn it into missiles. It's primarily a tanky droneboat and has 4 turret points as well as 7 low slots (which is insane for a t1 BC with a resist bonus). It doesn't need to be cleaned up either since Amarr uses lasers, missiles, and drones.

[coral night]

Lol! Ikr?

[coral night]

When looking in detail about the Apoc, I was thinking to myself: Wow, pulse lasers are like.... in general kinda weak. But wanted to avoid suggestions that tweaked multiple ships. That's dangerous because then you need to balance every one of the hulls again. Like, the paladin is not weak. The Oracle is great at what it's designed for. So you can't just overbuff those other ships.

I'd actually like to hear some suggestions about the Apoc which are alternatives to mine. I haven't seen anyone give a solid suggestion. Lots of "it needs more" though, which isn't very helpful.

[forest hare]

90% of the legitimate complaints about Amarr ships is capacitor. Ships like the Abaddon need insane cap support to even function basically compared to the Hyperion, Rokh, and Maelstrom

[coral night]

Yeah it does stink that the fact that, as a theme, the entire weapon system is extra vulnerable to neuts, which means they need to use a lot of cap, but even without pressure it means they struggle to do other active tanked things.

To be honest though, something like the Abaddon could get a significant cap recharge per level bonus without significantly impacting the meta. It would really only be useful for pve.

Even better yet would be an active rep cap saving per level.

So buffer fits aren't affected.

[glossy nimbus]

its not drone boat. its tanky shitboat. 75 droneband not droneboat on BC size. sry

[glossy nimbus]

90% of combat amarr ships needs buffs, It's easier to list ships that dont need buffs in amarr shitshiptree

[forest hare]

Then you're using it wrong and that's on you

[devout sage]

The game is about choice. Why should shield crabs have defense or electronic warfare? Do you want amaras to be imba? Apparently you want your favorite ships to be meta, right?

[glossy nimbus]

or maybe Advanced Controlled Bursts skill. Also cap not only one problemm. for eg Geddon Navy have HUUUUGE issues with CPU. As i say, all cruisers have problems with mid slot. 2 mid on frigates is bad too. but on frigs you can try to come to terms with it.

[sonic pebble]

Hmm...thinks on it...should CCP do a very carefully "walk in" capacitor values of laser weapons?

[glossy nimbus]

Do you want amaras to be imba? Apparently you want your favorite ships to be meta, right?
nope. I want people to start using some other ships in game. all 3 other factions have good or above average ships. Amarrs have shitboats that bad in pve and mostly useless in pvp. Why i must use omen navy while i have great stabber fleet with 4 mids and great stats?
also CCP can balance this +1 mid. I am only referring to the problem of the lack of 1 slot. for eg Zealot/NOmen can have -1 low. etc.
Why should** shield crabs** have defense or electronic warfare?
what? shield ships now have both defence and some slots for ewar. look at osprey navy. scythe fleet, caracal navy. caracal. bellicose. all have good slots for tank points and webs. 5 slots enough for shield beacuse you have extenders in rigs and passive shield regen. you cant use passive tank in armor. you can find stasis or point in rigs. also 4 mids is ok for shield tank. look at vaga. great HAC. most powerfull i think. all missiles shield criusers can have good tank, prop, point and web. why amarr cant?
The game is about choice.
yes. and you never choose Amarr ships. they have better alternatives. drone boat? vexor better than arbi in both armor and shield. pvp? godlike exeq navy. good stabber fleet. vexor navy. normal thorax. vexor. pve? vexor, stabber fleet, exeq navy, thorax. You have only one good cruiser with lasers in game. Its Phantasm.
Game about choise. But you havent choise while you fit legion. You cant use any other sub except Wake Limiter

[devout sage]

Why i must use omen navy while i have great stabber fleet with 4 mids and great stats?
So that's the point, if you have a fleet, then on the stuber 90% of the mid slots will be occupied by tanking. You will not use dis or scrum. This is only necessary within the framework of solo PVP, but in this case you will have to sacrifice tanking. And on Armored ships, you choose because of limited slots.
what? shield ships now have both defence and some slots for ewar. look at osprey navy. scythe fleet, caracal navy. caracal. bellicose. all have good slots for tank points and webs. 5 slots enough for shield beacuse you have extenders in rigs and passive shield regen. you cant use passive tank in armor. you can find stasis or point in rigs. also 4 mids is ok for shield tank. look at vaga. great HAC. most powerfull i think. all missiles shield criusers can have good tank, prop, point and web. why amarr cant?
For a passive tank to work, you need modules to increase it; considering this as an "incredible advantage" is simply absurd.
and you never choose Amarr ships
SubCuP yes, but Dread is the best Amar

I don`t said that Amars are used. And that's a problem, but not in that way.

[glossy nimbus]

Also some friendly reminder for CCP. 24, 25 & 26 October – Alliance Tournament XXI
its not good release balance changes near AT

[fleet mesa]

What do you think about reworking mutaplasmids a bit—while also expanding the range of items they can affect?

Feedback:
Currently, mutaplasmids upgrade existing modules by modifying their stats within a certain range, using real number values (e.g., +0.005). While this creates a theoretically infinite number of unique items and expands the item database, it also introduces several issues:

• Item grouping becomes impossible – due to slight stat differences, especially for weapons, grouping is disabled because of mismatched attributes like rate of fire and damage.
• Management and control difficulties – real-number differences make it harder to sort, compare, or use items interchangeably.

Suggestion:
Keep the concept of stat variation, but instead of real-number precision, introduce discrete steps. For example, if the mutaplasmid modifies stats from -15% to +15%, use a step-based system with 1% increments. This would reduce the number of unique variants and make module stats more manageable.

Benefits of the Step-Based System:

• Controlled diversity: Limits the number of unique items, reducing database bloat.
• Better item management: Players could stack or group modules with matching stats, making weapon grouping and logistics easier.
• Broader application: Enables mutaplasmids to be safely used on weapons and other modules not currently supported.
• New gameplay opportunities: The potential for item destruction due to poor rolls adds risk and value to the process.
• Another “gold rush”: Encourages players to hunt for perfect rolls on meta modules, stimulating trade and PvE.

[glossy nimbus]

if you have a fleet
Eve online not only about fleets. also i talk not only about solo. its about small-mid scale too.
We already have not bad HAC - sacrilage. its have 4 slots. why we cant have 2 not bad HACs? why we cant have good laser HAC in game?
SubCuP yes, but Dread is the best Amar
im talk only about subcap and only about combat. im havent any idea about ewar, logi, any other support ships. havent enough expearence.
For a passive tank to work, you need modules to increase it
You can have rigs + 1 LSE + invul + DC. its enough. Look at this one. its works great. https://zkillboard.com/kill/128890427/ you also not needed cap booster on autocannons/missiles. its 1 free mid.

[ebon turret]

AT has always operated independent of balance patches, if a patch happens it's the same for everyone and up to teams to adapt to it

[urban pawn]

amarr ships are genuinely some of the strongest in the game, wild to me that youd assume anything different

especially in solo/small gang

[forest hare]

The Abaddon does need to be tuned up though I'd say. Its capacitor can't even support its weapons or a single repairer

[urban pawn]

I mean yea, I can see that, but honestly thats the only accurate thing from all of the above

[sacred juniper]

l2p noob

[forest hare]

And that's the point I'm making. Amarr ships are absolute units and don't need to be buffed overall. The Abaddon though absolutely needs to be looked at because anything it does you can do in a redeemer with more versatility or just bring an oracle and do the same thing, faster.

[spare tangle]

always loved how the Abbadon looks and im sad all i can really use it for is Wormhole rolling

[urban pawn]

No I do agree, I was mostly referring to the "cruisers need 4 mids" etc points

[forest hare]

Yeah no they already have the most lows and can pump out damage with 0 reload time. Adding ewar slots onto that would just be insane

[urban pawn]

I assume the guy who originally said that doesn't understand the differences between races and is trying to use Amarr ships as if they were gallente brawling bricks

Which is understandable if he's someone with little PvP experience

[forest hare]

To be fair the ship he was giving an example of was a brawling brick
The prophecy can seriously destroy most t1 BCs with some fun fitting

[rancid parcel]

t1 battleships are generally in a poor area because of a mix of tank, damage, and price/performance, but amarr battleships especially since their weapons are competing with their active tank...kinda by design

since lasers have so many upsides

they basically use capacitor for ammo and thus must be designed around that

[dapper ruin]

Abbadon go brr

[urban pawn]

Zealot/nomen definitely are not

[coral night]

Ah! Here's an idea! What about a cap recharger bonus?

So the Abaddon can't active tank with a passive cap recharge because the guns are so cap hungry.

We can't bonus cap boosters, cargo amount for cap boosters, cap batteries, armor rep cap usage, or lots of other things because that also affects pvp.

But cap rechargers are specifically used in pve.

Because they gimp your ability to use scrams, webs, and other mids necessary for pvp.

So here's an Abaddon fit which may be used for pve. It has 722.8 EHP/sec rep against rats shooting only kin/thermal.

[ebon turret]

this is a big buff to logi abaddons and im all for it

[coral night]

For reference, a similar passive fit for a domi would have 630 EHP/sec.

[coral night]

Ah darn. Forgot about that.

Hmm. Tbh I've never looked at a logi Abaddon so I just threw it into pyfa. I'm.... not concerned that a Abaddon hull bonus to cap rechargers change this much.

That fit is +60.8 GJ/s and -45.6 GJ/s.

If you buffed cap rechargers to get you +90 GJ/s with t1 large CCCs, maybe T2 large CCCs might allow you to barely fit two large remote armor reps plus maybe a medium one?

[worn dock]

stop trying to turn everything into a cap stable pve boat

[coral night]

So the item in question is cap rechargers. Passive cap stability is precisely the topic of concern. A cap injected Abaddon wouldn't have its cap amount affected much at all since it's dominated by the +145 GJ/s a heavy cap booster with 3200s provides.

[worn dock]

yes I understand that cap stability is the topic of concern that’s why I told you to stop

not every hull needs to be a cap stable pve boat

[coral night]

The topic is: How do we get the Abaddon to be a better pve boat without breaking pvp?

[worn dock]

why

[coral night]

Because there isn't any good T1 Amarr pve battleships. They all can't active tank because their guns eat up too much cap.

[worn dock]

seems fine

[spare tangle]

could like cap injectors not work?

[worn dock]

you can also not permarep

[ebon turret]

wrong rigs

[spare tangle]

i mean if you cycle 3 cap injectors maybe? i dont know much about pve battleship fitting though

[worn dock]

the whole premise of "I need this hull to be cap stable while permarunning a large armor rep and the biggest guns (oh and I also have an mwd with the worst cap penalty) and if it doesn't work it's broken and needs to be rebalanced" is off

[coral night]

Ah well, then by that logic I guess the Amarr will just have to either put missiles on geddons or wait to train to a paladin.

[ebon turret]

cruise ngeddon is fine

or indeed rhml

[worn dock]

or learn to pulse a rep

and fit quad lif instead of compact

maybe go down a size in guns

lots of options here

[ebon turret]

of course, there is another alternative in which players would enquire 'are any of the amarr battleships good for pve' and upon hearing the answer 'no', they would not train for them if their objective was to do pve

[worn dock]

maybe fit a cap booster and solve all your cap problems

[ebon turret]

should they have reasonable drones skills, the dominix would be an excellent choice!

[worn dock]

but noooooo you yell cap boosters are only for pvpeeeeee

[ebon turret]

also true

nooo i cant stock up on dirt cheap t1 cap boosters

[worn dock]

if you use an MTU to loot your wrecks I bet you can build your own cap boosters from minerals from reprocessing loot

[coral night]

Ah yeah. You'd want RR agumentors.

[ebon turret]

indeed

[coral night]

In that case, you could give it a CCC hull bonus.

[dapper ruin]

or and i think this is more likely what will happen cause ccp at times gets it right.. You dont balance a ship around pve

[worn dock]

👆

[dapper ruin]

Balance a ship around what makes sense for the game at the time, then if it is great for pve awesome, if its not, figure out how to make it work, or switch to another ship

[jagged panther]

Idk I actually think it’s reasonable to have something T1 in each hull tier viable for PvE from each faction.

People play the game sometimes just because it looks cool so I support the idea that they can have their favorite factions aesthetic while they do… whatever it is they do.

I guess my thought on it though is that HS is enough for this. It doesn’t need to be competitive in every more advanced PvE niche.

[dapper ruin]

Each faction has a T1 hull viable for PvE

all hulls are viable for PvE

[spare tangle]

Going exploring in my abbadon tomorrow 💪

[dapper ruin]

Good for you, like I said, all hulls are viable for PvE. Some are just going to be much better than others. Just the way it is

[eternal hound]

poor definition of viable

[dapper ruin]

Its not. An abbadon can go do exploration just fine. Is it the most effective? Not at all, but it has no issue doing explo stuff

[sonic pebble]

The same argument could be had about PVP only balancing as well.

The problem is if you overtweak for PVP...then its highly usable in PVE. If you over tweak for PVE...it may or may not be functional for PVP.

I think it should be down the middle. [Ironically...the "balanced" position.]

[smoky portal]

Pirate Dreads still too expansive

[sonic pebble]

I think the main problems is the issue of the Reactions

Reactions are almost completely player controlled.

Almost to a monopoly level.

There is no NPC alternative other than player controlled assets.

PI is spread out and varies player to player-planet to planet.
Mining is determined by player interaction.
Industry can be done at NPC stations...same with market.

But Reactions is almost completely player controlled.

Can can be choked down rapidly.

[worn dock]

reactions being player controlled has absolutely nothing to do with pirate dreads being too expensive

hope that helps

[dapper ruin]

How the fuck are reactions the reason pirate dreads are expensive

where on earth do you get that idea from jfc

i know you have some stupid takes but that has got to be one of your worst

[hybrid sinew]

Pirate dreads are expensive mostly due to the BPC costs. Material wise, they are not much more than a standard Dread with the addition of a little for the second set of FTLs and Trigger Neurolinks

[sonic pebble]

Sum Total materials etc...or ISK only.

Because with escalating build complexity...the cost of the Pirate Dreads does make sense to an extent. And some components do require reactions.

[dapper ruin]

Milint, material wise, it isnt that much

for a Vehement, the BPC is like 25b roughly iirc?

[hybrid sinew]

Same number of reactions for a standard dread as a faction dread with a couple of extra for the materials I noted above. Reactions are not the issue, I do them all of the time and that has never been my bottle neck.

[worn dock]

actually the price of pirate dreads is mostly due to the removal of three moon mining athanors from hek

[jagged panther]

Also like…. Reactions use moon ore which is mined

So viewing it as distinct from mining only somewhat makes sense

[languid fractal]

ya its 100% the bpc cost lol

even the floor with LP rates are insane

they should be as expensive to zirns as zirns are to navy dreads

ppl would use them but they wouldnt b the only dread used

[fleet mesa]

ССР, what do you think about making faction BPCs for ships more affordable. Let’s look at dreads, carriers or even titans. For the whole history - there are just several fraction titans were killed - in most cases all of them are museum exhibitions due to their price.

What’s if you add a small chance to drop BPC from each faction ships (NPC) in the game? If you get faction titan on the belt, and possibly to get BPC for it - that would substantially boost PVE (across the board). Even more extreme version might be if BPC drops from PvP destroyed ships.

I fully aware how those BPC can be obtained now, but even with such number FW people we can’t see a lot of faction hulls (cap and super cap) in the game.

I also understand that those who has those rare ships will be upset, but that’s the pain we need to accept if we want to make those ships more accessible

[ebon turret]

yes suggestion let's stop reacting to milint suggestions as if they aren't the ramblings of an incoherent

[ebon turret]

also this guy

[fleet mesa]

Also this guy

[ebon turret]

everything you have said so far boils down to 'me want big ship good'

'buff caps so i wont die if im doing stupid shit in them'
'buff carriers so i can control 30 subcaps at once'
'make faction caps available so i can own some'

the entire point of faction caps is that they are rare and expensive

this game isnt spaceship collection simulator where you just get to own every ship because you want to

[fleet mesa]

Not only, but big guys are underused, if you don’t agree - just look at zkilboard - number of lost / or market sold small vs big guys

[ebon turret]

lol

is that your main character?

[fleet mesa]

What the point? Why not? What is the problem for people to allow them use any shops they want?

[ebon turret]

because this is not a single player game

this is an MMO which involves balance between power, value and availability of ships, you are not the main character

[worn dock]

clearly there's a balance issue because we're losing 2000 t1 frigates a day but not 2000 titans a day

[ebon turret]

i don't see how someone with 40 kills in 12 years of lifetime can have any reasonable and/or knowledgeable take about basically anything related to pvp, to be honest

what makes you think your opinion on the balance and availability of various ships is in any way relevant when it's a part of the game you have basically not engaged with?

[fleet mesa]

None of the proposals contradict with what just said. What is the reason to make angel titan ~1t ? For what? Museum exhibition?

[worn dock]

damn boss really lowered their standards

[ebon turret]

boss has always been ratter brains

their identity is industrial alliance

[ebon turret]

yes, so it's meaningful when it dies

if everyone has an azariel then it doesn't mean anything when one is lost

that's kind of the point

[ebon turret]

again

[fleet mesa]

It is basic customer and player feedback as many others. Neither more or less then yours or esi-bookmark’s or others. That thread is about feedback - if you do not like it or think it is extremely stupid - ignore it.
Your comment on value and “that means a lot” - fair feedback. That’s your thought - great, I respect it, but I have different view.

[worn dock]

there’s no rule that I have to ignore your feedback

if I think it’s extremely stupid I can comment on it and explain why

[fleet mesa]

Sure you can, and I am happy to see you feedback instead of comment on standards. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

[dapper ruin]

Nerf kite, buff blaster

thx

[sonic pebble]

Only if you allow Minmatar to have a shotgun round for their projectile weapons.

But I think Blasters already can kerblam everything [even unbonused fits can be kind of weird]

I think its more about adding more options to allow grid flexibility to allow your brawlers to close range...or to frustrate kiters.

[dapper ruin]

Blasters are more similar to shotguns than projectiles are you muppet

And no. Just fuckin buff blasters. Thanks. Bye

[devout sage]

Pirate ships including super and capital ships exist. They are even used, just rarely. Honestly, I am glad to see the trend of minor changes to these ships. For me, pirate ships are worse than regular ships, but they have special bonuses, like the Caiman with fighters. I think their models should be changed. They should look like heavily modified faction ships.

[restive bay]

i think most people are wondering why they bother with them when they are in most cases straight up worse than navy counterparts while costing literally 10x

if ccp's goal with them is to have them be useless isk flexing ships with no actual usecase then sure

but having in my opinion almost half of the unique capital hulls in the game be useless is a little depressing

[forest hare]

I mean a huge issue is people's risk aversion too. Navy dreads being able to fill almost every capital role other than a FAX is a major problem imo. Why would you ever undock a pirate hull that's decked out in officer and faction mods when you can just bring an RNI and do the job for cheaper?

[restive bay]

That’s not risk aversion, that’s pirate dreads being really horrendously bad for how much they cost

[restive bay]

Putting officer mods onto anything that cannot get reps and dies to like 5 dreads is brain damaged imo

[forest hare]

That's literally risk aversion, you won't undock it if there's the risk of losing it

The other end of that is to buff them for their cost but then you get pirate dreads on par with AT ships which is even worse

And still, dreads being the single most flown capital in the game with all other ship classes combined not even reaching a quarter of total capital killmails is a bigger problem that needs to addressed. Navy dreads shouldn't just be able to fill every role capitals could have

[restive bay]

It’s cost effectiveness

Not risk aversion

Same reason supercaps aren’t really being used

They are still not cost effective for how much they bring to the table

[devout sage]

If you open the door to risks then the questions for titans are even bigger than for pirates. We don't have a clear understanding of the meaning of ships, because we don't have NAVY versions of some ships and we can't track the trend of their characteristics. The thing that upsets me most about pirates is the Guristas. Maybe pirates are ships in reverse or these are ships from the "What if?" category. But honestly, I'm more concerned about the inefficiency (not the cost) of titans and carriers.

[restive bay]

What does any of this mean lol. The performance of every ship in the game is related to cost

The reason the navy dreads are used so often is they provide essentially linear stat increases over their t1 counterparts in relation to cost

[ebon turret]

The difference is that for subcaps, risk can be managed on an individual level

If I fly an AT ship I'm going to be an attractive target but I can manage the risk by choosing my engagements and fitting in a non committal way

If I fly a pirate dread I'm still an attractive target but I'm locked in place and can't be repped for 5 mins the same as all the other dreads

The risk management is on the group level of whether you're going to get capital escalated upon, rather than anything on the individual level

[ebon turret]

If they doubled the dps of the vehement would it see much more use? I think it would see more but only slightly because sure now it does a funny number of dps but the 'is it worth using this' equation is basically unchanged, you're still going to be shot first and you're still unable to be helped

[worn dock]

if it outdpsed a zirn it would get use in wormholes probably

not in kspace

[devout sage]

You can estimate the cost, but that's not right. How are you going to calculate certain additional ship abilities and construction speed? You can't base it on dps/cost and ehp/cost.

[restive bay]

Cost factors in speed of construction and I’ll be honest pretty much all of the pirate dread’s special abilities are gimmicks

[restive bay]

Also dreads are one of the few things u kinda can base the effectiveness of on just ratios of dps ehp and cost

If you drop 150 navy dreads vs 150 pirate dreads, the navy dreads will probably win both the fight and the isk war

[sonic pebble]

The problem of the Pirate Hulls is some of them have extremely tight fitting, and restrictions on rig fitting. 350 vs 400. And Pirates as of this moment do not have T2 hulls. (We do have AT hull variants, but this doesn't justify the problems with the Pirate Hulls)

So while some Pirate hulls have value at lower levels of skills...they get quickly shut out as things get upgraded.

I think the main issue with Pirate Hulls is the hulls become redundant as T2 becomes the capability filler. I mean Example...Dramiel...frighteningly fast on align and until you get Concord Ships to full skill because they are T2 Omega Hulls...is one of the fastest frigates on the draw and warpspeed wise. But even though it has alot of bonuses and advantages everyone rolls into T2...and the Pirates tend not to really get used for their advantages.

[ebon turret]

Milint pattern recognition has noticed that pirate hulls have less rig calibration, that is therefore a huge problem

[slate shale]

Tbf pirates arent strong enough rn to warrent less rig calibration

[sonic pebble]

And some of them even have worse fitting than baseline T1/Navy Hulls.

So some fitting even trying to capitalize on their strengths...usually ends up with overpriced fits for their functionality.

There was a discussion about a year or so ago...about trying to make unique faction specific weapon bonuses...IE Angel Cartel Ships...get damage bonuses if fit with Angel Cartel [Domination...etc] weapons and modules.

Because in many cases although factional weapons do give you some flexibility...advantages...they generally tend to be overshadowed by the mass usage of T2 weaponry. [Even though the T2 weapons are harder to fit and also have some downsides...that make you wonder if they are really worth taking.]

[devout sage]

You are right. But Guristast is used for farming. Caiman does not use it, as well as FAX, so I have a question for Titan, why is Komodo so different from all other Titans, including pirated ones.

[slate shale]

because it has fighters. its a supercarrier and titan in one

making it arguably the coolest ship in the game, but the damage is really not that much higher then regular titans

[jagged panther]

People use the dram more than the pacifier for sure

For combat tasks, that is

[coral night]

About dreads. Can we speak to what the suggestions would be to re-balance dreads other than the rev and zirn? Obviously, these two dreads have been dominant for a long time.

Obviously a good tank, DPS, and range combination is always king. But there are interesting things going on with dread mechanics that make things unique.

Key unique mechanics:

• Dreads enter siege, and can't receive remote reps until they exit.
• For the most part, dreads essentially teleport to anywhere on to the field they want to, then are stationary (you could argue hedge cases, but for the most part this is true).

Normally, DPS and tank maintains a specific optimal balance. Is that balance skewed highly in the tank direction for dreads? I think so. I think that's because if a dread ever wants to receive remote reps, that dread needs to survive five minutes of damage. The larger your tank is and the less damage you are taking, the greater your chances are of exiting siege and surviving. I'm pretty sure this is why less highly tanked dreads like the nag and moros are much weaker. Theoretically, giving higher damage to less tanky ships should eventually offset this disadvantage in a fleet fight. But how much higher does the damage need to be? I don't know.

Capitals can exit siege and warp to a new position on the grid. However, this is very rare. It requires them to be unbubbled, unharnessed by subcaps, and willing to trade at least a whole minute out of siege. It's really only something that happens if the battlefield is "won already" and just being cleaned up. So effectively, this means that dreads with large flexibility of DPS within 100km really thrive. If you apply poorly at ranges greater than 50km, your enemy can just drop outside that range. This is another reason why I believe the moros, nag, and to an extent, the phoenix struggle. They just don't have good flexibility through ammo type selection. You need that if you basically have to sit on the grid in the same spot.

So, because the rev and zirn have high tank, they have the highest chance of catching reps when exiting siege, especially in "small-scale" engagements. In addition, they both have flexibility in their ammo type which allows for great range flexibility.

A small gripe: What use even is high volley equipment on dreads except when fighting non-dreads? Dreads don't need to have high volley against other dreads because they aren't receiving remote reps.

Another comment about low DPS but long range dread weapons: While feasible to use in some rare situations, the lack of damage these deal significantly contribute to the chance a well tanked enemy dread has of exiting siege and successfully receiving reps. Because this is also coupled with significant tank penalties due to higher fitting cost, this makes your own fleet much less likely to exit siege and catch reps.

These larger guns also can't double as anti-subcapital weapons like the short range weapons can (dreads can "blap" subcaps if supported by sub capital webs and paints using short range anti-cap weapons).

Possible things to look at:

• Less tanked dreads could have shorter siege cycle times.
• EHP buffs to dreads which lack tank right now.
• Ammo type rebalance for XL ammo types.
• Buffs to dread resist types to hard-counter other dreads (i.e. high EM/therm resist for the nag).
• Higher active tank bonuses for ships which don't have good tank so they can do better in small-scale engagements.

Any other ideas?

[jagged panther]

I mean saying the Phoenix doesn’t have good flexibility in ammo type selection is rather bold

[dusty ibex]

The nag sucks because it got nerfed to hell after everyone and their mom used only the nag for like what a decade straight?

[rancid parcel]

a few things i want to point out is that dreads are mostly siege weapons. they must pretty much be uncontested in order to extract or move out, otherwise they hunker down and become monsters. as for the dread meta, both the zirn and rev have a few things going for them.

rev uses hitscan laser weaponry, doesnt need to stuff its cargo holds full of bulky ammunition, and has instant ammo swaps. this is very valuable in all sorts of engagements from small fights to tidi hell. its also armor tanked, which has a massive advantage of not being as reliant on capacitor since it has passive multispecs, while shield multispecs can be turned off from getting sucked.

the zirn is in the same boat. armor tank, big chonk, hitscan weaponry. but its the zirns high damage spool that is invaluable for fights.

the phoenix is terrible for any large scale engagements simply due to the fact that it is not hitscan...
moros is cool and all, but i feel it stems more from how extreme its weapons are. blasters are too short range, railguns are too long range. it doesnt have a good middle ground nor the adaptability of instant crystal swaps like the rev. the MNI can be terrifying in the right hands in small HAW engagements tho
nag can be good in some situations, J space most notably, but theyre pretty squishy as far as dreads go.

and what everyone else says here

[restive bay]

whats different about the komodo? also what does "caiman does not use it" mean

[restive bay]

the meta is more than just rev and zirn

[restive bay]

if youre talking about fighters, its a stupid gimmick that has no actual benefits for the cost lol

[coral night]

I mean, I'm not saying that the meta is only the rev and zirn. Other dreads have decent use cases as blap dreads. The phoenix exists as an extremely tanky paint platform. But as far as high utilization, it's pretty much indisputable the rev and zirn are the most used, and for good reasons.

[restive bay]

90 day dread kills

nag fleet needs a buff

but apart from that i think its not a horrible meta apart from zirns having too much range for their insane dps

[ebon turret]

zirn dps is stupid

zirn range is also stupid

i cant understand why ccp didnt nerf zirn starting dps by 20% when they nerfed all other trig ships, except to avoid crying from people who invested into zirns

but it really doesnt make sense for a 1 entropic zirn to start at 11kdps cold (45km range) when a 1heat sink rev navy shooting conflag starts at 10.6 (30km range)

ooh the rev can load scorch and do 6.6k at 80km

the zirn does 10.4k at 71km with baryon or 7.9k at 117km with meson

and the rev is the best of the navy dreads so ya

idk why the zirn is so obscene

[restive bay]

either or would fix it or like make the high dps ammo have very short range

[ebon turret]

yeah, theres no reason its so forgiving on range

[restive bay]

baryon has a better damage profile with like 75km of range

[ebon turret]

the only reason i can think of is ccp didnt want people to cry about training into zirn and then it gets nerfed

[coral night]

You're right of course. The PNI is strong and does get the most use. Perhaps those numbers are high due to PNIs being used in PvE though? Maybe it doesn't significantly skew the usage enough. Idk.

Either way, I agree that the PNI needs no additional help lol.

And I agree with all comments above about the zirn. It's absurd.

Ok, so provided we couldn't nerf anything because tears everywhere... what do we buff and where do we buff it?

[dusty ibex]

Honestly the Nag needs buffing desperately. It is ridiculously under used across the board, and mostly only by legacy dread pilots that are too lazy to train a good dread.

[dire flume]

Tell that to the pirate BSes, the only pirate BS that isn't an apex level ship really is Rattlesnake (and in the past it was)

I remember when Zirn came out and I told Brave FC chat that I believed it would be a mainstay in the meta on the level that the revelation was, and nobody believed me

The only Navy dread that needs a buff rn is the Nag fleet

[rancid parcel]

buff how?

[dusty ibex]

Honestly it just needs more tank. Either -1 low and +1 mid or vice versa. Maybe a bit more range?

Buffer tanked it has bad damage and application compared to rev/zirn/phoenix even the Moros, the other active bonuses dread can be buffer tanked much better and it also has a better active tank and slot layout.

[jagged panther]

In pve it does get used, it’s the high class wormhole krabbing dread

[dapper ruin]

Buff the moros please

more dakka

[sonic pebble]

Use the abyssal mods man.

[dapper ruin]

Milint. Kindly shut the fuck up please. Thanks

[nimble sage]

Milint, I beseech thee, silence thy rambling at once.

[sonic pebble]

Lets first look at all the other weapon systems and mechanics before we begin to buff stuff. The problem now is with all the new abyssal kit...including glorified...and well considering event boosters.

Means if we do a baseline buff to a ship hull...then we can end up making something really broken in that line of thinking.

Sub Caps do need some looking over...Capitols need a bit more careful consideration since they are endgame products.

[dapper ruin]

There is no problem with abyssals ya muppet

Me saying buff blasters is sarcasm to a large degree

[sonic pebble]

Sarcasm noted...but to the point...if you buff a ship...then not consider the highest potential of that ship...is that a wise point?

[limpid rapids]

right, so while edge cases should be considered, making them the sole focus of balance means that nothing will get changed at all

[dusty ibex]

Kinda sad that’s its only real use

[dapper ruin]

Its a fucking moros. You buff the blasters on that, even the highest potential of the ship isnt that big of a change

[sonic pebble]

The main problem will be [extreme penalty] middle ground [extreme bonus]...we want the middle ground to be the largest position. And this could be more beneficial for balancing.

We could balance the game more on the middle. [Very slight but purposeful changes to the game that will have potential positive impact]

[sonic pebble]

Considering the Moros is a Dread.
And will probably be seen outside of Nullsec scenarios...we do have to consider some factors if we buff it.

Although you have other options to further tinker with the Dreads now in nullsec.

But that is beside the fact, but things must be considered carefully.

Maybe if the Moros does get buffed...then buff all the competitors simultaneously.

[dapper ruin]

Buffing the moror with more damage does very little to anything

[jagged panther]

Yeah, I’d like to see it more viable outside that too. I was just noting one use it actually does have. To some extent I think it’s inevitable that there are some ships in every category that play relatively minor roles or have niche tasks. But it’s still worth looking at ways it could be more viable outside that

[dusty ibex]

This is just me, but I feel a dread or really any cap shouldn’t really be reduced to “niche C6 crab boat” role. Maybe I’m just a little salty it got nerfed so hard in the past but man it really does just feel bad to use outside of wormhole crabbin.

[rancid parcel]

its just too squishy. even the penis and penis navy issue doesnt see popularity unless its something that doesnt really move like structure bashing

but at least those guys can be quite tanky

[dusty ibex]

Mm PNI is a pretty good boat, XL torps need some help to hit but XL cruises are pretty good.

Haw PNI can keep up with the Moros NI nearly. Moros NI is probably one of the best HAW dreads tho.

It’s a Zirn/RNI meta unless you’re dropping at zero and then the Moros + NI are pretty good.

[jagged panther]

Yeah it’s not ideal, for sure. But dreads have a pretty narrow niche in the game already in terms of how they function on grid, to some extent. So it makes some sense to me that only a few hulls would make the cut for “optimal” in the meta

Or at least that it might take some creative thinking to give them a proper slice of the pie

[dusty ibex]

Yeah i suppose. That said the dread balance is a lot more sensible than the carrier/super balance atm

[rancid parcel]

what carrier/super balance?

[dusty ibex]

I think overall we’re in a mostly okay position with subcap ship balance. I think a few could use some tweaks up and down tho.

I think T3C could use a bit more generous fitting room across the board and the Firetail could be a little bit better of a ship balance.

[dusty ibex]

Ha exactly. It’s a ship class CCP isn’t sure what to do with

Supers are kind of okay rn after the ss revert.

[jagged panther]

I’ve always been a bit confused that there are both carriers and super carriers

[rancid parcel]

yeah supers and titans double dipped on the resist and extender/plate buffs

[dusty ibex]

Well they just went back to where they were.

[rancid parcel]

ive always imagined its supposed to be dreads and carriers are the "normal capitals" and titans are super dreads and supercarriers are...well...

yaknow...

[dusty ibex]

Which is fine, I’d argue a certain cylindrical titan actually needs more tank added

[rancid parcel]

but HAW dreads exist so that kinda invalidates the whole reason of a "punch down" capital; carriers

[dusty ibex]

Well yes but also the massive application nerf to fighters is what invalidated them as a punch down capital.

[rancid parcel]

true

but its still odd that a haw dread does a better job at punching down than a carrier using smaller ships to punch down...like thats the entire point of a carrier vessel

[dusty ibex]

The issue that we have had in the past (and CCP is starting to be better at) is that they would take a problem, and instead of doing 1 or two things and seeing how they worked out, they would just slam the nerf bat at the entire ship class.

[rancid parcel]

the fact that a dreadnought gets better application than a literal frigate sized fighter craft is moronic

[jagged panther]

I feel like the way carriers have been looking, the prevailing idea has been to make them more like fleet support ships than actual strike carriers

[rancid parcel]

dreads have more tank
dreads deal more damage
dread hulls are cheaper
dreads are cheaper to skill into
dreads cant be defanged like a carrier
dreads have better anti-sub performance
dreads have anticap options

[dusty ibex]

Instead of separating the triage from combat carriers (which was entirely the issue with slowvats being oppressive) they

Separated triage
Massively nerfed capital tank
Nerfed the piss out of fighters
Added self tackle to NSA

And then we come back 5 years later and carriers have a few neat gimmicks and no damage

[jagged panther]

I’ve heard that idea before, taking HAWs away from dreads entirely and making carriers fill that niche instead.

[dusty ibex]

The issue of carrier oppression of small gangs was honestly an issue because of how cheap they were and that they could fill every role in a fleet. Tackle, ewar, logi and damage.

Now we have it split and the issues that made that ship class oppressive can’t exist anymore.

[rancid parcel]

or...hear me out on this. give carriers their own version of siege that provides massive damage and tank benefits. this allows a carrier to choose to commit to grid and bring them up to par with a HAW dread, while also by nature being able to remain more mobile and not be nearly as crippled as a dread is out of siege if they choose to remain mobile.

[dusty ibex]

If you drop a carrier to harass a small gangs even with old Eve fighter application, you would need to commit a FAX as well.

[dusty ibex]

Less options in a sandbox are worse

[rancid parcel]

^

[dusty ibex]

The days of a carrier being a solopwn mobile that cost 200m after insurance are gone, no matter if fighter application was added back and if you could evaporate frigates with rocket salvos.

[rancid parcel]

and this would also bring in line the behavior of normal caps vs supercaps. supers and titans get to bring all the damage and all the tank while remaining mobile. thus is the price of...well..their price. dreads and carriers can commit to grid and get local tank and damage benefits. dreads by nature of siege weapon must lock down to be anything but useless. carriers can choose to commit to grid and get up to par with a dread, but with even more monstrous punching down, or remain mobile while also not being useless out of siege like a mobile dread is

i think thatd be a good change

[dusty ibex]

My only issue is that in order to be remotely combat viable, you are already self tackling with the NSA. I feel the attraction to carriers is their ability to not commit to a grid and be mobile.

Really all a carrier needs to be viable again is a moderate amount of tank and then fighter nerf rolled back.

[rancid parcel]

right thats what im saying.

[dusty ibex]

Which I would note, the revert of surgical strike has lead to titans and supers being used again and more often in home defense.

I would postulate that carriers would see similar results if the fighter nerf was rolled back. I also suspect more would die due to people being excited to use them again and over commiting

[rancid parcel]

they can remain mobile, and still be acceptable in terms of damage and tank, (the stats they have now.) but they are also given the CHOICE of a core to commit to grid, get insane local tank buffs a-la dread, and insane damage buffs a-la dread. this would bring them up to par, while not forcing them to siege on grid to be anything but useless

thats entirely what im saying

it would fit their role as the more mobile cap

[dusty ibex]

Hmm. I can’t really comprehend an active tank carrier so that’s a bit hard of an idea to envision for me.

[rancid parcel]

i mean yeah its not really a direct alignment with their optimal use case which is ranged support and force amplification

but again they can have that choice to commit to grid, no matter where, and get those buffs.

unlike a dread where its either coughing baby or nuclear bomb, no inbetween with or without a siege core.

[dusty ibex]

I think that if I was ship balancer at CCP. I would start with a fighter nerf rollback and then see what my game looked like before looking in to creating new mechanics.

[rancid parcel]

itd instead be like 10 year old with a knife vs slightly less brawl-y nuclear bomb lmao

[rancid parcel]

true

i can already hear people crying about how oppressive that would be, yet i dont exactly see people yeeting HAW MNIs into every single smallgang fight they see, golly gee i wonder why

[dusty ibex]

Well the reason is that when the older PvP small gang crowd hears carrier buff they are thinking of the absolute monsters they were

They were absolutely broken

Beyond belief

If CCP had taken any one of their abilities away, it would have broken the slowcats

Realistically all they needed to do was separate triage into the FAX ship class and then leave the combat carriers alone.

I disagree with some people here, notably Bazza, in that I feel light fighters should apply to frigates well enough to pick them off.

But that in counter they (fighters) are killable, jammable and I feel a carrier should not be quite as strong local tank as a dread since they should be killable, just not by a random nano gang.

That’s just my personal opinion, others disagree, it’s fine.

[rancid parcel]

and I feel a carrier should not be quite as strong local tank as a dread since they should be killable, just not by a random nano gang.

absolutely

but it cant hurt for them to not be fish out of water if someone so much as sneezes on them

[dusty ibex]

Yes I feel a medium strength buffer tank would complement them

[rancid parcel]

to reflect their big sister ships?

[dusty ibex]

What I would like is for a plate/extender bonus to be applied to carriers, and fighter nerf rolled back across the board for LR and light fighters.

[rancid parcel]

so dreads can be the active tankers, carriers be buffer

thatd be interesting...

[dusty ibex]

Yes precisely

[rancid parcel]

not the same that supers or titans get lmao, thatd actually be broken

[dusty ibex]

No absolutely not

[rancid parcel]

maybe....100%?

[dusty ibex]

I was thinking the same bonus as battleships or slightly less

If it was me. I would first start with fighter nerf rollback and if I felt they were dying too much, I would increase their tank with a small buffer bonus. I would start at 50/20% plate/extender and go to 75/40 and eventually 100/50 if I felt they were underperforming

Because dreadnoughts, even the t1 dreads can mount a significant buffer tank that eclipses carriers that are much more expensive.

And with the aspect of super carriers, they are incredibly expensive now and even at full legacy strength, they will not be thrown around as they were in the past.

There are precious few players that can yolo a super and not wince a bit at a replacement cost of nearly 80b fitted.

[devout sage]

I think Komodo is different from all other pirate ships/titans. It has the highest tank and at the same time increased DPS. In my opinion, Komodo should be worse in ehp but better in terms of fighters.

[devout sage]

Right now yes, but I think it's better to move there than to add ehp

[devout sage]

You described all the reasons why dread is better than titan/super/carrier.

[devout sage]

Maybe it's worth increasing the ehp a little?

[rancid parcel]

That’s the point….?

carriers excel at nothing

[devout sage]

Titans too, only super feels better

[rancid parcel]

Please tell me you didn’t just conflate titan performance with carrier performance

[devout sage]

I'm just saying that titans are as useless in fight as carriers.

[ebon turret]

if titans are useless then the risk of losing titans wouldnt be a reason for nullsec stagnation (but it supposedly is) so something doesnt add up

'we cant wage a proper war because we risk losing our supercap fleet and then we would get run over but also supercaps are useless'

[dapper ruin]

Theyre only good at sitting in hangers being scary

Or titan bridging

Our scaring off ns from having full on wars

[devout sage]

And carriers are now also used as a cheap bridge for the fleet, since small formations do not have titans (Delve for example)

[fleet mesa]

Titans like nucs - many have them, but nobody use them 🤭
Practically, just compare isk vs reward and imagine the case where and who could use them …

[devout sage]

carriers/super/titans are the ships that need to be changed for the better first.

[dusty ibex]

They’re not tho. If you have a proper capital engagement, nothing is better than a titan at deleting other caps/supers. It’s just getting to that level of escalation is very rare.

[devout sage]

Defenders are better off using titans because of the teaser. Titans are generally not good enough to use in today's reality.

[restive bay]

they are good when only one side has them

however no group is able to reasonably replace a large titan feed

meaning no one wants to whip them unless theres no risk of counter escalation

[sonic pebble]

Or potentially the adjustments to counter the fighters might, would cause problems with ship balance elsewhere.

[dapper ruin]

Milint shut up

[sonic pebble]

I closed the attic door already...it couldn't have open that quickly.

The problem is if we make other ships be able to attack fighters...it might make them too efficient on smaller targets.

We could potentially have other weapons that would be better in countering fighters. Kind of like hyperspecialized defense weapons...like a defender missile.

But, I do not believe people want a full hard counter module.

[dapper ruin]

Any ship can attack fighters
And fighters have a specialized version.. called space superiority fighters that excel at killing other fighters

Milint, you need to just shut the fuq up. You make yourself sound more and more stupid with every post

[coral night]

The only use case I can think of for carriers right now that isn't completely broken but still use individually deployable "large drone" things is a non-committal bash support platform for undefended structures (ex: Metanox moon drills).

You give them not fighters, but slow-ish bombers with super bad application and tank, but about 10,000 DPS per carrier. By super bad application I mean like missiles with huge signature radiuses and very poor explosion velocity. By bad tank I mean a Cormorant can take a "wing" out in a few hits with spike and very vulnerable to smartbombs (so about 1200 EHP for the entire wing).

The trouble is, if you give carriers fighters which are fast and apply to subcaps well, even without web and scram support, they will easily run off whatever small gang harassment fun anyone brings into your space.

I mean, if you expect a small gang to be able to take out multiple fighter wings which can scram, web, go 2k m/s plus, and have 1000 or more applied DPS with cruiser EHP you are crazy. The reality is that most small gangs of 5 or so people struggle to take out two small tackle boats if they come in at the same time. That's why strong anti-tackle nano platforms like the Orth are so necessary, but even they can't withstand swarms of cruiser size things going 2K plus with 1000 DPS with scrams and webs.

At least with dreads, you can pull range before they slow and siege up most of the time. So anti-cap abilities on a stationary platform isn't cancer for small-gangs.

Warning: Full rant mode now. That bullshit with carriers, supercarriers, and titans with HAWs being able to kill small-gangs was total death to this game. And the fact that rat aggro changed to switch targets made it extremely challenging to take stuff out in lightly tanked ships. Oh and I forgot about Abyssals! Letting people make money in their own personal dungeon that nobody else can enter is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of for a pvp game.....

[dapper ruin]

Hot take.
Small gangs of 5 or so using dessy/cruiser shouldnt have an easy time killing captials

Should they be able to kill em, sure if the cap pilot is dumb.
But not easily and it should take a good chunk of time

[coral night]

No shit. But the capital shouldn't be able to take them all out by itself without any other support.

[dapper ruin]

A solo carrier cant take out a competent small gang

[coral night]

If you make it so a capital can take out a small gang, then it runs off the small gang. No more small gang content in your space due to capital umbrella.

[sonic pebble]

But, at what efficiency. And to throw another carrier at another carrier to counter their fighters...seems very anti-climatic.

And considering the suppression factor of a capitol to some content...maybe a little looking into could be of interest.

[sonic pebble]

What about a single anti-structure...heavy bomb/missile Gunship class?

Meaning if someone brings that to the party...that means any combat functionality of the carrier is a bit impaired...but not to completely.

[coral night]

Basically, if there are any suggestions to restore fighters and support fighters to pre-nerf levels: hard no!!!

That shit was cancer.

And Nullsec is still basically void of content compared to what it was due to that crap.

[dapper ruin]

Carrier fights are almost as easy to defange as normal drones are

We dont need something that can easily kill fighters because we already have that

[sonic pebble]

Or...could the situation with some of the fighters have their abilities broken apart so...you can create more fighter variants.

Looking at some of these fighters in combination with a hull...they can suppress alot of activity.

But if the abilities were split up a bit more...then there is a chance for getting content or escaping a carrier.

[dapper ruin]

Milint, shut up ffs. You dont even know what youre talking about

[rancid parcel]

You literally just described fibos and supers lmao

[sonic pebble]

From a tankiness perspective fighters are pretty tough cookies.

Better than most frigates...and all of them have some sort of speed ability. You are able to run down the majority of your smaller prey [Evasive Maneuvers also increases survivability of the fighters...to a pretty impressive degree.] and tackle them.

[restive bay]

this whole thread is people whove never flown or fc'd or planned anything with caps suggesting ill-advised changes lmao

jfc

[dusty ibex]

Again, the issues that caused the carrier oppression are removed. The issue was that carriers did everything well and cost basically nothing and didn’t need support. Even with a fighter nerf rollback they will still need support to not eat shit. They’re too expensive to be yeeted like they were and the average carrier owner can’t even control fighters well enough to do anything outside of a fleet anyway.

[coral night]

Kinda. Like a cheaper supercarrier with less DPS and way less bomber EHP. Cyclops IIs have 9925 EHP per ship in the squadron if you shoot at their resist hole. 6x ships in each squadron.

[restive bay]

then u can like give it a mode to not get reps so it doesnt just outclass supers then maybe make the range like 25-50km

[dusty ibex]

Mmm you could call it a siege module!

[rancid parcel]

Yeah a whole 10k ehp at 30+ mil per

[restive bay]

great idea!

kinda like marauder bastion

[rancid parcel]

It’s like using assault frigates as ammo, but also worse

[restive bay]

it should stop u from warping or moving

[dusty ibex]

And it could use fuel

[rancid parcel]

Woah

Crazy concept that

[dusty ibex]

We could call its fuel Strontium

[restive bay]

i think we are cooking

[rancid parcel]

Hear me out on this

[dusty ibex]

NSA should boost fighter sensor strength when activated

[sonic pebble]

Well considering even a poorly fit carrier can buff their fighters to a pretty unpleasant degree. And those fighters can reach further than most of the "counter" options.

I am surprised there hasn't been more huff and fluff surrounding how cheap the rigs that buff fighters are [for fitting]...or which particular items give particular factions the best options on grid.

[worn dock]

you’re ignoring the expectation of future value

just because something is useless now doesn’t mean it will be useless in the future

[sonic pebble]

They are relatively high on the targeting speed ability. The weird thing is the NSA buffing the fighters sensor power. IE anti-jamming capacity.

And depending on fighter squadron the targeting range is 60km [Light SSF] 70km [Light] and 54km [Support]

They also can lock a target inside 2sec and below.

Its also kind of why there was some talk earlier on in the thread about the concept of a fighter command module...something that could be scripted.

Maybe for a specific fighter tactic or type.

[dapper ruin]

Milint have you ever actually used a carrier in a pvp situation? Or fought against one?

[coral night]

Lol. I admit that giving a carrier high DPS without a siege module would take the uncontested bashing use case away from the dread. The dread would still have a use case for bashing under contested conditions. But hey, I'm not seeing any suggestions other than "more EHP" and "cancer to subcaps".

Dreads just are good at too many things at once. If you want to find usefulness for other capitals and you can't find something else for them to specialize in, dreads will need to be nerfed.

[sonic pebble]

Point taken.

Carriers do have some capabilty to have very high dps.
And Ironically they are more mobile versus the Super Carriers.

NSA acting like a Siege Module.

You would think they would be the better hit and run option...versus Dreads and Super Carriers.

Which begs a question...why haven't players used them as such.

[Maybe preventing them from being nerfed into a grid pinata?...with a lock down module?]

[worn dock]

smaller ship is more mobile than larger ship, how ironic

[sonic pebble]

Mobility...IE...its currently one class without grid lockdown.

Not that I am advocating for all capitals to become "stuck in"...which would rapidly make them even less interesting even for endgame players.

[rancid parcel]

My dude

Because they suck

They lack application

They lack damage

They lack alpha strike

Even a marauder gets more damage than a capital class carrier vessel….and better application

Sometimes not right

[sonic pebble]

Well looking at ways you can fit the carriers...they can attack from longer ranges than the marauder...and some of their fighters can work better at range.

But, that is one question to be asked on.

[worn dock]

they can attack at longer ranges after their fighters spend a few minutes slowboating over

[spare tangle]

how much would letting fighters just warp to anywhere on grid like a normal ship do to carriers

target 800km away? okay just warp the fighters over they have a warp drive

[dusty ibex]

Nothing really.

More structure bashing yay

[spare tangle]

true

i was more thinking atleast without the slow boating carriers could atleast sit a ways off and react to threats faster then dreads and stuff

[dusty ibex]

They can react all they want, can’t kill anything with a carrier

Once you get like 50 carriers they’re alright

[spare tangle]

fair enough lmao but they could atleast go blow up a stationary cyno or something maybe

[dusty ibex]

If the only use for a ship is to go blow up a stationary cyno without guns, then it is useless.

[rancid parcel]

Awfully bold of you to assume that light fighters can even apply to a cruiser sized ship

[spare tangle]

Sounds god awful if they couldnt even apply to a stationary target 😭

[rancid parcel]

Look at the explosion radius and velocity. Light fighters are awful, but fibos are worse than a rage torpedo in terms of application which is wild considering they are both anti subcap fighters.

For example T2 firbolgs (lights) have a 185m and 105m/s on their main weapon. the t2 anateus (LR) has 570m and 80m/s.

it’s awful

[dusty ibex]

For the people that don’t know the relationship between explosions velocity and size, this means they can’t hit cruisers for very much damage.

[dapper ruin]

Carriers suck balls

Dreads are great for cap fights

Milint is an idiot

Whats new?

[dusty ibex]

Hmm

Well they have alcoholic mtn dew so that’s new

[restive bay]

Fibo are acap

Lr is anti sub

[rancid parcel]

Ah right sorry

[dusty ibex]

Get fibonked

[rancid parcel]

[fleet mesa]

Some absolute crazy idea, but I’d like to hear what you think about it:

Current situation: warp initiation requires 75% of max speed, which can be reached in a few ways:

1. Pre- Align before warp - when you hit warp - you get immediate warp
2. Use AB/MWD and during inertia period use warp - again insta warp if you were aligned
3. BlackOps use cloak to increase speed and immediate warp when out of cloak
4. Use web to reduce max speed -> insta warp

All of those techniques substantially erode initial preparation to warp for each ships from frigs (with slight time <2sec) to dreads and freighters, which align time over 40sec. Moreover, it slightly reduces importance of modules for increase agility (many might disagree with me here)

Proposal: Rework warp preparation mechanics and introduce warp preparation time, which will require time to start warp regardless of ship speed or alignment to the warp direction.
Some modules and imps could reduce that time.

What the expected outcome: warp initiation will work properly for each ship and bigger ships will require proper time to be ready for warp. No “features” by webs, rigs, AB/MWD or cloaks etc.
most likely time will increase a bit, but that would be easier to catch some big targets for frigs (some might like it some might not)

What do you think?

[coral night]

Some Analysis about Dreads:

Small Scale Dread Fights: What happens if we adjust EHP and siege cycle time together?

Let’s assume that when attacked, a dread could be anywhere in its siege cycle. If we understand the time left until the end of siege to be a random variable, then:

If a dread had 6m EHP and was attacked by 10x dreads having an average of 10,000 DPS each, then the dread would last 60 seconds. With a 5 minute siege cycle, the chance to exit siege successfully is 20%.

If a dread had 10m EHP and was attacked by 10x dreads having an average of 10,000 DPS each, then the dread would last 100 seconds. With a 5 minute siege cycle, the chance to exit siege successfully is 33%. This highlights how good it is to have high EHP.

If a dread had 7.5m EHP and was attacked by 10x dreads having an average of 10,000 DPS each, then the dread would last 75 seconds. With a 4 minute siege cycle, the chance to exit siege successfully is 31%. Substantially better than it was before, but not as good as the 10m EHP dread.

Let’s compare that to an active tanked dread. Without being neuted and with an adequate supply of cap boosters, a semi-bling Rev Navy can have about 60k EHP/s tank unheated with strong exile and links. Against 7x dreads having 10,000 DPS each, this would break the Rev Navy. But what if it buffer tanked instead? At 9.5m EHP (a semi-bling buffer tank with HG amulets and links), it would take 135 seconds to kill it if it didn’t exit siege. But the chance that it did exit siege over that time would be 45%. That’s pretty good chances! If the number of dreads drops from 7 to 6, chances become 53%. For reference, an Apostle with 2x enduring remote reps repairs that same Rev Navy for 22.3k EHP/sec. So it would still take multiple Apostles and/or other logi to save the dread once it exited siege.

See below for current stats of all dreads. These dreads all have semi-bling fits using HG amulets or nirvanas and links. Nothing is heated. No drugs are used. All dreads have a single capital cap booster and no neuts/nos, with the exception of the Zirnitra, which has dual large cap boosters so it can fit a third plate. All armor dreads have one weapon upgrade increasing DPS.

After this analysis, when you ignore the Zirnitra, it seems like all dreads have good reload options at close range and far range and seem well balanced. Note that with drugs, the turreted ships will benefit more, with the Zirnitra and the Rev Navy benefiting the most.

It should be noted that the Zirnitra has both really good EHP, great DPS even without spooling, and the best DPS after 8x spools (which it would only be able to achieve in small-scale fights when shooting at a single target for more than 60 seconds). Because it has a really good chance of exiting siege or a very strong active tank along with the spool ability, the Zirnitra is simply just exceptional at small-scale fights. With a buffer fit, it has the added flexibility of being really good (perhaps the best) at large-scale fights too with the best damage at 100km even with zero spool along with high EHP. But I think we already know the Zirnitra is overpowered.

It might make sense to just buff the active tank of the Moros Navy and Nag Fleet to compensate for their low EHP, but the levels they would need to be buffed to would need to be absurd and wouldn’t have the flexibility of being good at both small-scale engagements and large-scale engagements.

What about capital emergency hull energizers (those capital-specific damage controls)? It seems kinda on-theme for the Moros Navy to use that. How could it utilize this? Well, it kinda already can, but the emergency hull energizer doesn’t do anything until you turn it on and then it only gives hull resistances, but takes the place of the damage control. The lack of the damage control resistances really hurts when you exit siege and try to receive remote reps. What if we give the emergency damage control damage control-like resistances to armor, but only allow the Moros Navy to benefit from that? You could change the module to give it 0.15% passive armor resistance which didn’t “burn out”, this would benefit everyone. Then, give the Moros Navy a 100x bonus to that. The emergency hull energizer, when active, would give substantial structure resistance (and therefore substantial total EHP), but this would be temporary, perhaps long enough for the Moros Navy to survive to exit siege. For now, the 17.5 seconds the emergency hull energizer lasts seems adequate. Further iterations could increase this duration. For reference, an Apostle with 2x enduring remote reps repairs a "high resist" Moros Navy for about 19.2k EHP/sec if fitted with a damage control.

Suggestions:

For the Naglfar Fleet Issue: Increase base shield EHP until it can achieve 7.5m EHP with a semi-bling fit. Give it a role bonus which is a 20% decrease in siege module cycle time.

For the Moros Navy Issue: Role bonus to increase emergency hull damage control armor resistances by 100x. With this, add a passive 0.15% resist bonus to all armor resists to the emergency hull energizer which stacks like the damage control.

[fleet mesa]

What about making Seiege module scriptable? And then you could load several types of scrips:

• longer (let’s say 10m)
• current (5m)
• shorter (2.5m)

And depends on the type, you might have different bonuses, e.g more tank, more dps, more tracking etc.

So, having that we could incline dreads to the different types of enemies:

• smaller scale (nano ships)
• more tank / damage etc

That’s would be nice to see that type of options which you could change on flight. It should be extreme but some range I’d love to see

[coral night]

Good idea. But I'd be hesitant to add something which allows a ship to have such a massive change in it's stats while in combat. You want fitting choices to be impactful. If your enemy can never bring a hard counter to you because you can just adapt your fitting, what's the point of a hard counter?

This is why combat refitting was nerfed.

[fleet mesa]

Sure, it shouldn’t be extremely wide range between options

[coral night]

Also, your suggestion might be a good idea, but I don't really know since you haven't yet quantified what you mean.

[jagged panther]

I feel like the format and any attempt at concise feedback has been thrown by the wayside. We’ve long passed “ship feedback” and are deep within “some random idea I have” territory

[dusty ibex]

One thing that is being overlooked is that alpha damage is significantly more important than DPS when looking at buffer vs active dreads.

It is entirely possible for a dread that can paper tank 60k EHP/s to be alpha’d in a single volley.

Because to hit those numbers you need 2x capital reppers + nano pumps. This leaves you with very little buffer usually sub 2M and it is nearly impossible to fit 2x capital cap boosters, 2 capital armor reppers and acap guns.

The 60k EHPs only counts if the total alpha is less than the buffer and the reps can catch. Acap guns will most likely just wipe and active tank dread off grid before a single armor repper can cycle.

[rancid parcel]

dreads dont need any help like carriers do

😭

[coral night]

I don't understand what you mean. The dread with the highest volley is the PNI with 183k volley. It also has 15k DPS. Maybe you could have some ultra bling heated capital fit tank 100k DPS (like the Mino). You would need 7x PNIs to break that. Those 7x PNIs volley for 1.3m damage. So as long as an active tanked ship has above 1.3m EHP it's good. Otherwise, it's dead anyways.

I don't see an issue with the EHP of active tanked capitals.

I understand it's nicer to have more buffer as an active tanked ship though. It prevents "waste" rep cycles.

I mean, we haven't even started to talk about volley balance. For instance, why is the volley on the Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery so low? It's only 103k with Quake XL on a Nag Fleet Issue. It's not like volley matters much anyways since dreads in siege can't receive remote reps. It would really only be good against volleying a super, which seems nearly impossible in practice. You would need about 50 dreads to even equal one doomsday.

[devout sage]

If we increase the ehp of dread, we should consider increasing the doomsday weapon.

Watching the chat here, I am amazed. You don't use superheroes and titans because they are not very effective, but you want to make dreadlocks even better.

[coral night]

Lol at your autocorrect.

Nah, I'm simply saying that one dread with already low EHP should have it's EHP adjusted up slightly, but not more than other, more oppressive ships.

Also, I'm highly suspicious that the doomsday was not balanced to be solely intended as a "one shot kill" against dreads, FAX, and carriers. It seems like it's massively more useful as a high volley mechanism for groups of titans to use against other titans.

Also, a doomsday can't already kill a NFI in one shot anyways.

[sonic pebble]

Considering that the Capitols do have access to other weapon systems.

The "Lancer" Lance is available to fit on Titans.

Which kind of made me wonder a bit why.

Because it basically allows the Titans to counter all other classes pretty handedly

And in consideration of that...I am surprised it doesn't have an upgrade...but having a rapid fire lance would be a bit annoying to deal with.

[worn dock]

doomsday damage was recently buffed to adjust for the increased ehp of faction dreads

[sonic pebble]

The Pirate hulls have the added advantage of being able to fit two different factions weapons...which allows them also some flexibility over the empire titans.

[coral night]

Since titans, supercarriers, and carriers can receive remote reps, high volley has great benefit against those ships. Ideally, you time your volley to all land at the same time and the ship targeted instantly goes boom. Remote reps don't matter. However, if you keep increasing doomsday damage inflicted, it makes the minimum number of titans to volley another titan or supercarrier less. Increasing titan EHP has the opposite effect. This is why dual tanked titans are a thing.

20x cheap fit apostles with 2x remote reps each remote rep an Avatar for about 350k EHP/s (depends on fit ofc). So ofc, you would want to volley through that to make those 20x ships completely ineffective.

[devout sage]

I believe that a titan should die for <50 titans. And a pirate titan for <60-65 titans. As for increasing DD damage, I don't think that's enough. We need to find a balance between the survivability of expensive dreadnought fits and death with cheap/medium fits.

Here is my opinion.

[coral night]

If you want to do all that stuff to "make titans great again" that's fine, but I'd suggest further restricting targeted doomsdays to not be allowed in lowsec (like the area of effect ones already are).

Here's the thing. Titans are great and all, but if that's the best thing to bring to the field (the thing we just need MOAR of), then it substantially raises the bar for what is needed in a fight.

Right now, the thing people need MOAR of is dreads. Even a T1 dread is welcome. And if you have tons of isk, you can easily just multibox dreads. As a result of that, people throughout lowsec are having a blast dropping dreads on each other because it's a balance of usefulness vs upfront cost that allows a lot of people to get involved.

Buffing titans would reverse that.

And they JUST got buffed and, to my knowledge, we haven't even yet seen a fight where titans with FAX support are fighting a dread bomb. Maybe you're underestimating them.

[coral night]

But, I mean, ask the prominent lowsec FCs. See what they say. I'm betting though that more than a few would ask to have Titans buffed. I mean, it is frustrating to have to multibox lots of characters. They could probably be multiboxing titans. So players with lots of isk and the will to leverage that against their enemies are biased in that sense. But the question is: Do we want the game to be structured to be that you need to be in a titan to truly feel useful in a fight?

[sonic pebble]

Even though the Titans can use the Lances in Lowsec...which might tip some balance in their favor....well especially those who have cap less turret systems.

[devout sage]

I just see the numbers. Lightly armored and at the same time cheap dreads (all except nagli) withstand the blow of DD - this is strange. I think that feats should be EXPENSIVE to withstand damage from DD. I am already silent about my desire to increase ehp by another 40% and increase conventional weapons.

[sonic pebble]

Is this also something of interest with signature?

[dapper ruin]

Titans IMO should 100% be able to 1 shot a dread

[devout sage]

Well, why not? For example, a person installed estimel and can withstand not 1, but 2-3 DDs - this is logical. But now feats on dreads are the CHEAPEST and they cannot be killed in 1 shot.

[dapper ruin]

i mean if its a blingy af dread then sure, should withstand it,but yer normal T2 fit, nah. Smacked by a titan

[devout sage]

We're not even talking about T2 here, but ordinary green paint. Only an officer should be able to withstand it.

[dusty ibex]

You know while we are at it, I think I would like to see the Panther get a web range bonus and the Sin have the logi drone bonus removed and changed to a point/scram range bonus.

It would just make them “feel” more synergized with their racial ewar types.

[dire flume]

As someone who has a solo sin, I concur

[spare tangle]

save the logi drone bonus for a faction Logi black ops or something

[desert adder]

We could have a blops logi but ccp caved to the dumb krabs and gave us an useless trig marauders

[spare tangle]

t2 nestor is still possible don't give up hope

[desert adder]

ffs can people stop with the dumb idea

we absolutly do not want our blops logi to be another 1T AT ships

this whole thread was a failure to begin with since it didnt require a basic game knowledge test to be allowed to participate in it

[rancid parcel]

I think this started out as discussing carriers….

[ebon turret]

[restive bay]

Real

[nimble sage]

real

[lean sapphire]

nono i was the first with edencom ships

[coral night]

Options for ship balance feedback:

• Reddit: Gives the most popular opinion (not necessary the best one).
• Discord: If someone's opinion goes unchallenged or isn't refuted, it may be mistakenly taken as "good feedback".
• The CSM: Sometimes really knowledgeable people are elected. Sometimes you get someone who just wins the popularity contest. At least now, CCP can hand select 2x who ranked 11th to 20th (still not a perfect system).

So yeah. It's not like there is a test for specific subject matter expertise lol.

[strange basin]

The devs have player statistics, they could decide who is qualified to run to represent certain play styles.

[coral night]

Lol. "You have been banned from becoming a CSM because you applied for the wormholer seat but have only traveled through a wormhole 25 times".

"You have been banned from becoming a CSM because you applied to the small gang/solo seat with only 50 solo kills".

[sonic pebble]

Well not withstanding human nature and internal EVE politics...including PVP in suits this could be a problem.

[sonic pebble]

Looks over...then what happens with the largest wallets? Ratting or otherwise.

[sonic pebble]

I am surprised by this line of thinking...considering the consistency of people trying to make the Stratios into a Cov Op Logi Cruiser...in this thread and elsewhere.

[sonic pebble]

I mean...if the Panther and SIN didn't have the ability to just drop on your head.

I wouldn't be against an "Assault Battleship" having this capacity. IE the EWAR synergy...Web and Scram/Warp Disrupt...for Panther and Sin.

However, with the factor of being able to be hotdropped right on the target. Having either Web or Warp Disrupt/Scram capacity...with the ability to just drop onto the target would mean nearly 100% any engaged target will die. [Which would be very oppressive and trigger a massive set of backlash nerfs. Not just to BLOPs but Recons as well being the Cyno drop point.]

BLOPs already have some issues in that regard due to the speed under cloak issue. Which can allow for some pretty aggressive Cloak/Bump Combination. And I am surprised people haven't used the instant cloak target realign bonus more aggressively like using BLOPs as mobile gatecamp forces. Against smaller targets not as useful...but against slower align ships...that can be rather annoying to deal with. [IE using recons and BLOPs to aggressive pressure forces retreating from a fight or moving around territory.]

[dapper ruin]

it wouldnt

[spare tangle]

tbf the sin dropping at 0 ontop of your head how often would it get to use a scram/point range bonus the target is already tackled right?

[sonic pebble]

I would consider it a major problem if the BLOPs [Sin and Panther] got racial EWAR bonuses. Factor in the fact you can also throw on Heavy Warp Disrupt/Scrams...which can mean anyone caught by a "upteched" Sin will probably be just plain stuck in and die.

The Panther with Webs...will probably mean more grid control...but considering BLOPs can be dropped on top of the target via Covert Cyno. It would probably overenhance its supporting fleet.

The gate camping side of the equation...with the targeting system realign bonus [0 penalty] means that then certain fast lock BLOP builds will be even harder to counter...lock targets up...wipe them out. Panther will probably end up becoming even more powerful in that regard due to the Web range bonus as suggested above.

Sin...you just can't escape due to the Warp Disrupt/Scram + Heavy Warp Disrupt/Scram implications. Drop on a Target...they can't escape.

[sonic pebble]

It could reinforce a tackle...and with heavy tackle mods involved...that could be a bit overtorqued.

[ebon turret]

Please dont respond to him

You only encourage his walls of drivel

[sonic pebble]

Then what is your point Bazza...unless you want to shut down discussion.

I think a Sin getting that warp disrupt/scram range bonus would be a bit too much.

[dapper ruin]

Until you learn to not post massive walls of shit

its not worth discussion

[dapper ruin]

Normally the primary target is scram/webbed by the cyno

[sonic pebble]

Quietly points out...I do not have Discord Nitro...be thankful.

[dapper ruin]

so its usually 2nd or 3rd targets

[dapper ruin]

You should be limited to 100 words per post max.

[spare tangle]

yeah it could be nice if your dropping on a few barges or something your right

[dapper ruin]

because 99.99% of the time, 99.99% of the stuff you say it worthless and has no meaning on the discussion one bit

[dusty ibex]

100% more than it currently uses the logi drone bonus

[dapper ruin]

Tbf, most any bonus would make more sense than the logi drone bonus

like why tf does the sin have that

makes 0 sense

[spare tangle]

oh yeah for sure anything is better then the logi drones

[dusty ibex]

Shield sins are based asf

[dapper ruin]

lemme just drop my sin, and then rep my friendly blops while neuting the target out (cause lets be real, blaster sin is poodoo)

[spare tangle]

if anything the logi drones should just be a little extra role bonus rather then a Skill bonus

[dusty ibex]

My issue is that you look at the T3 ships.

Loki gets webs
Tengu gets jams
Prot has scram/point
legion has neut

Then you look at blops
Panther has ?
Widow has jams
Sin has logi drones?????!?
Redeemer has neuts

Blops should reflect their racial T3 ewar bonuses because it would make sense.

[dapper ruin]

wheres da deemer

[dusty ibex]

I put the widow twice

[dapper ruin]

but yes, would make more sense for blops to follow their empire stats

[sonic pebble]

I am guessing CCP balanced the Sin...because it didn't want self sustaining BLOPs + Logi combos...that could run around nullsec/lowsec without reprecussions.

The Logi Drones was the counter point to allow BLOP operations to be "semi-functional" without direct logi support.

Although...Sin could just as easily have Logi RRs on itself. [Not very efficient...but you can do that...but that goes against the "fitting Dogma" that is in EVE.]

This another reason why I have my concerns about your Cov Op Logi Stratios concepts.

[dapper ruin]

Blops use FAX

[dusty ibex]

Like not even from a balancing standpoint as web panthers would make them incredibly viable instead of what they are now.

Scram Sins would make them exceptionally viable and provide incentive to not just Redeemer + 1

[dapper ruin]

eh, deemer will still be numba 1

[dusty ibex]

Mmm

[dapper ruin]

great tank, projects well

and nuets

[dusty ibex]

For QRF probably. But I would nearly guarantee you would see web armor panthers on QRF doctrines

Instead of just “ah more fucking Deemers”

[dapper ruin]

they'd def see more use

and it would also allow the panther/sin to be used more often in solo dropping

[dusty ibex]

I do agree tho. Redeemer is the most viable blops and imo that should change by adding utility to the other blops.

Rn the only blops that has utility is the Widow and nobody wants an armor widow

The redeemer meta is a by product of the other blops just having bad utility bonuses.

This leads to stagnation in the meta which is bad and boring.

[dapper ruin]

yarp

[dusty ibex]

CCP gib us useful ships!!!

We want a meta change that isn’t just Caldari RP online across every bloc doctrines.

[sonic pebble]

I mean yes this is a good point.

But there is a much more nuanced balancing concept that has to be parsed out.

Panthers tend to be used like snipers. As the Senate has proven.

If it was webs, I would have to cross check its overlap with the optimals/tracking of Projectile Turrets. If we add Web Bonuses...Panther might be used as a Brawler.

Well, Redeemer is mostly because of the current Capacitor Warfare Meta centered around Neutralizers.

Sin...hmm...debates any major changes. Because the 0 drop allows them to be on top of the target. Maybe a little tracking bonus or ROF bonus for Hybrid weapons. Ironically its Logi Bonus synergizes with the tracking/optimal range bonus...so longer ranged logi drones for it. Kind of a unique gimmick for itself.

[sonic pebble]

If you did that the weapons/ammo would need to be tailored for specific armor/shield/hull metas. Not sure if you would like that.

Although I am very partial to a shield stealing weapon system...that would make Caldari and Shield Metas kind of risky.

[sonic pebble]

Again...if you factor in Heavy Scram/Warp Disrupts...I think you would reconsider from a balance point.

[spare tangle]

Clearly the choice is to just make the Sin a hyperion and let it be the "haha damage go BRRRR" one (Joke)

[sonic pebble]

Or...maybe increase damage of the drones or their fire rate.

Unless CCP decides to take the joke of an "Assault Battleship" and make a T2 Hyperion

[dapper ruin]

Adding webs to the panther is fine.
Gives it a use for auto over arty, or just put long range webs and use arty.
Deemer is fine where it is
Widow is fine I guess?
Sin, give it scram range and/or range hybrids. Dropping on 0 is irrelavant because the cyno is normally main tackle and most blops will have a disrupter for secondary/3rd/4th tackle anyways.

[dusty ibex]

[sonic pebble]

I can go with some sort of Hybrid bonus for the Sin...or a combat drone bonus adjustment...or maybe even drone speed bonus. But a Scram/Disrupt bonus might be too much.

Panther...Web is debatable...because it could end up allowing their prey escape. Unless they are deliberately using a "Hunter Fit" in order to keep the target pinned on grid and not able to escape. But in combination with other ships in the BLOP category that might be a bit too much.

Considering the concept from a Solo/Small Gang/ Fleet/ BLOPs ops one would have to weigh how this could have impacts on the game ecosystem in ways not foreseen.

Good thing I didn't suggest a Stasis Web Field Generator for the Panther...that would be broken.

[dapper ruin]

Milint you dont even use blops.
Scram/Disrupt would not be too much.
Panther web is perfectly fine

[urban pawn]

A web bonus would make it a based nano ship

[sonic pebble]

It is already a pretty fast ship...and it does have a pretty good signature and speed for its class.

[urban pawn]

Sig is kinda irrelevant on a BS but yea speed is a big factor

It would also solve a big issue with roaming in battleships, movement and getting camped, since you can just cyno out of a camped system

That said, idk anything about blops balance

So idk what it'd mean for non-degenerate blops gameplay, I just find the idea of having a nano BS with bonused webs that isn't garbage cool

[sonic pebble]

looks over at the Bhaalghorn...about that.

[dapper ruin]

milint shut up

[dusty ibex]

People would probably start using Autocannon web panthers instead of web Lokis which would be based asf.

[dapper ruin]

that'd be fun

bait a couple of those out

[dusty ibex]

It’s got the right mids to pull off a web nano boat

Literally all the panther needs to compete with the redeemer is web range bonus.

Should be tied to BLOPS skill and not min battleship

So you don’t get 46km webs at blops 1 tho.

[sonic pebble]

Considering the Bhaalgorn can go ~60km with webs.

But to me the Panther is more of a Sig Tanker...which might work with a Brawling fit.

[spare tangle]

Sig tanking battleship is something i guess

[sonic pebble]

Considering it can go to 32m Sig...although one can get it smaller.

Fine...maybe allow the web range bonus...or even just allow it to have a web activation bonus...IE not taking much cap. [Better Fit Cap Stability]

But it needs to be within a set range...you want the Minmatar T2 Recons...and the Loki to have their combat niches with Webs. [Same with Blood Raider hulls]

[dapper ruin]

Cap stability is not necessary in PvP

and a panther wouldnt outshine the loki or huggin with webs

they all have very different areas they are used in

[spare tangle]

even with the same web range its like.. okay the recons and loki are so much cheaper and doesnt need cynos
your not going to gate a panther around with your friends in cruisers or something

[dapper ruin]

that and a panther more than likely wont be used in fleet fights

maybe it would, in which case that would be a fun kill

[spare tangle]

if it would be used it would probably be arty and get cynoed in at like 50KM away or something in a team of like 6 and try to alpha something then MJD away and cloak up

[dusty ibex]

Don’t underestimate how reckless I am

[spare tangle]

oh yeah im sure some people will do it it would be funny

[dusty ibex]

I would 100% nano a web panther

Cosmo Blink style with the tracking autocannons

[urban pawn]

Same tbh

Would give me a reason to train blops

[dusty ibex]

I already have blops V but it would be super nice to have something besides a Loki for doing stuff that favors long webs.

[ebon turret]

yer panther should have a small web range bonus like 15-20% per level

or even a grapple bonus like nag fleet

[dusty ibex]

Yeah 20% per level is exactly what I was thinking

It would just fit the ship significantly better

[sonic pebble]

So you want the Bhaalghorns Web Bonus on the Panther...uh huh.

[sonic pebble]

You are looking at between 70-65km for Kspace. Upwards of 86km for Jspace...but if you add various other effects...including interdiction charges on Skirmish Fleet Boost...well 111km isn't all that unachievable. Although the Minmatar Recons completely theoretically outclass it with 221km ranges. And Lokis coming in second with 148km ranges.

I understand the want to increase its functionality...but it needs to be taken in careful consideration.

Grapple range bonus...might be a bit too much.

Possibly the Loki needs some small buffs to give it more pizzazz versus the Minmatar T2 Recons.

Potentially the Immobility Driver needs to give the Loki also an increase in Web Effectiveness.

[sonic pebble]

Feedback: Upgrade the Lokis Immobility Driver Subsystem with a 5% per level increase in web effectiveness. Or swap the bonuses of the T3 Cruiser [25% per level] and T2 Cruisers [60% per level]
Reasons: Currently the Loki being a T3 Cruiser is out ranged by Minmatar T2 Recon Cruisers with stasis webifiers. It should be a marked improvement over the T2 ships in combat effectiveness. I would think it should be the apex of that particular form of combat fighting with its empires EWAR preference. [Loki Lacks both EWAR bonus for Target Painter...but also has inferior functionality with Stasis Webifiers]

**Suggestions: **[Read Below]
A) Upgrade the Immobility Driver Subsystem with a 5% per level increase in web effectiveness. Meaning it has heightened effectiveness [70%-75%-80% range] but does not interfere with Serpentis bonuses. [85-99% Stasis Web effectiveness]
B) Modify or Swap Immobility Driver Subsystem Stasis Webifier bonus to a higher range 30-50% per level [upgrading it] or swapping the bonus between the Minmatar T2 Recons...T3C getting 60% and T2 Recons getting the lower bonus.
C) Add Target Painting EWAR bonus either range or effectiveness to the Support Processor Subsystem.
D) Fitting considerations or bonuses for subsystems involving much heavier modules should be considered.

And on the grounds of the Sin getting a Warp Scram/Disruptor bonus...I do not believe that would be a good idea with potential 70km Scrams possible as of current. Warp Disrupts with 188km theoretical potential as well. Speaking of which the Proteus needs some looking at because it has a 7.5% per level bonus for warp scram/disrupts. While the Gallente T2 Recons can get a 20% per level bonus for Warp Scram/Disrupt.

I am hesistant on those grounds giving BLOPs the ability to further pin down.

[spare tangle]

if your fighting BLOPs your 100% already pinned down

[ebon turret]

Please don't engage with him

You won't change his mind nor make him say anything sensible, it only drives him to posting more walls of text that are either wrong, incoherent, or both

[nimble sage]

Milint, I command thy at once, cease thy incessant and insensible rambling at once.

[dapper ruin]

Can we get him warned for his wall of crap posting?

[ebon turret]

No he has diplomatic immunity

Just ignore

[dusty ibex]

I want my time back from reading whatever that was.

Loki web range is fine it allows T2 webs to be combat effective and lets CN/DG webs synergize very well with the weapon subsystems and overall ship. The Loki is ironically a ship that is quite balanced in terms of how well it works and its counters.

These incredible web and point ranges are theoretical, the most you will realistically see is about 100km on a Hugin with a god rolled fed navy web and about 110 ish on a Lachesis with a god rolled point.

Taking a min max approach and then presenting it as “normal” is absolutely insane.

The Loki, of all the ships in the game, needs changing the least unless we add 5% power grid to it.

[ebon turret]

Nobody tell milint that recons are supposed to be specialised and t3s are supposed to be generalised which is why huginn web range > Loki, why rook jam strength > tengu, why arazu point range > Proteus, and why curse neut power > legion

[dusty ibex]

^^

[ebon turret]

He won't understand even if you tell him

He will simply spew another wall of nonsense

So don't bother, just ignore

[dusty ibex]

But you can tell if you just look at the ship bonuses!

[ebon turret]

Something that milint is known for being allergic to doing?

[dusty ibex]

Ha true

We are doomed if CCP feeeds this thread into an llm

[dapper ruin]

He looks at ship bonuses then fits small autocannons on an ABC that gets bonuses to large autocannons

[dusty ibex]

Okay but to be fair there is one particular fit that going a gun size smaller works (and is hilarious)

But it’s literally one fit and it’s for memes

[sonic pebble]

Quietly looks over, considering we have alot of mechanics now in game that allows one to experiment with fitting and can build fits to specific situations...which can be outside the Max-Min Dogma/Doctrines.

Pixy forgets there are times and moments when certain weapon systems get bonuses...and if you fit for that bonus...and also consider the price of the ship...you will understand why I chose the ABC with the small weapons. And considering alot of the new content there is alot of opportunity for said fitting options. And if you factor in some other mechanics like fleet boosting interesting options come into play.

The some concepts are built around necessity. I have used BRs as exploration ships, because at the time the loot m3 wise for relic/data sites was pretty hefty. 10m3 for Overseer boxes. So after a bit you would end up cherry picking overseers...or leaving behind fireworks too much m3, if you were using a T2 Explorer. T1 you can cram more in, but you tend to be targeted because you are more visible. But then CCP went the "Shrink route" with PI and loot...instead of buffing m3 of cargo/specialist bays...or letting people figure out fits to solve the m3 issue.

There are also some squiggles that I think need to be looked into. Some ships BCs/Command Dessies...I think have too much synergy with fleet boosts, which allows some players to self-buff a ship for combat and content. Ironically if you take this same argument with Mining Ships...you get a howl about it only needs to be boosting nothing else. But you say that about BCs...mum...absolute silence.

Its the same problem with T1/Navy/Pirate vs T2 hulls.
Everything else is a bit more flexible and can have variant fits and wildly different concepts both following hullbonuses or going outside it. T2 to me seems more rigid.

Does anyone have a full on spreadsheet of every potential functional fit for a single hull?
[Especially after CCP adds new boosters for events...or new abyssal components?]
Does anyone have a 3D topographical functional graph of every ship fit...versus its potential threat/target fit? Where it shows the potential hot spots of effective fits?
I think there is still potential in EVE for people to find unique fits to do content.

[sonic pebble]

The problem with the argument. ***Is that most people will have a run in with the Max/Min situation and then demand a change based on that instance. ***

We want to aim for the average. But also gaming out the potential extremes so we can head off certain problems before they develop is probably a wise position to have.

Sometimes people advocate for a buff/nerf in bad faith...because it will take down their opposition or strengthen their gameplay. And that is a problem as well.

EVE is a living game...and always changing. But even then someone can ask those questions or look at a problem and point potential issues.

[ebon turret]

As you can see he just spawns a whole new wall of random gibberish

This is why we don't engage with him

[dusty ibex]

[sonic pebble]

What is random gibberish to your narrative.

I just pointed out there are times you can use mechanics to do things that normally are not used by players. Some of which are now available via Sov Now.

[worn dock]

going around saying things like t3c should be a marked improvement in combat effectiveness over t2 cruisers

which is directly opposed to the design philosophy for t3

[dusty ibex]

[sonic pebble]

Well T3 should have some strengths in this realm...and since its using Sleeper Tech...there should be some marked advantage over T2 kit. [T2 ships are the Apex of Known Empire Technology]...so there is reasonable question on this front...especially for the Modular T3C. They are experimental and have advanced tech that should dwarf T2 options...or give options not normally used or available to T2 hulls. T2 are overspecialized, T3 is customizable, T1/Navy/Pirate is Generalist -with flavors of course.

*At least I didn't ask for subsystems of T3 to be appliable to other T3 hulls...now that is full on insanity. * As much as I prefer to do things differently.

Barring transforming T3 concepts of course.

[worn dock]

the marked advantage is their flexibility

they also generally tank harder than recons

if you also give them better bonuses than recons why would anyone ever use a recon

[dapper ruin]

Why dont you try having a conversation without all the word puke bullshit?

Is that even possible for you?

I dont think so

you just put so much fluff in there, you hope, just hope, people think you know wtf you are talking about

[sonic pebble]

That is where the Recons with their EWAR side bonuses would have the advantage.
But also some of the Recons are better in align and moving around the universe.

Also Recons are Cyno operators am I not incorrect? So they will still have usage.
And they have some gimmicks that T3C do not have.

In some cases some Recons apply better.
Some Recons have drone bays...which some fits of the T3Cs do not.

T3Cs also have alot more vulnerabilties...since alot of the changes.
Personally...I think there should be more subsystems...to break apart some items that are overconcentrated in some of the subsystems. Even more flexibility...but loss of functionality for that customization into specialization.

Their tanking ability also factors in with overheat bonuses...which during certain events. [Winter Nexus] can make them really tough cookies.

[ebon turret]

@worn dock @dapper ruin please

Stop

I am asking you to stop because we all know it is pointless to ask him to stop

[dapper ruin]

Issue is, if someone doesnt counter him, some newbro will see his wall of text, read it, then think he is an all-knowing person

[ebon turret]

Again, please, just stop engaging with the troll

[steep needle]

Not relevant for once since this a thread

[sonic pebble]

**Feedback: **Modernization and updating Cloaking Mechanics and speed bonuses between classes of ships. Upgrading some of the modules for better performance.

Non-Cloak Speed bonused ships are affected by pre-engineered stealth movement penalties. However there is some outlying issues with this interaction system.

Prospect gets 0% movement penalty...so its pointless to upgrade or downgrade a cloak.
Cheetah gets a speed bonus under cloak [Covert...and this has caused some problems with aligning and warping away. With a standard cloak this only shaves off a small percentage of penalty.]
BLOPs with 650% speed bonus under cloak...generally get a pretty sizable speed bonus undercloak.

**Reasons: **I would like to see the more broad usage of cloaking technology in some fits, if not for travel purposes, but for situational advantage in Combat PVP/PVE. Currently cloaking is generally fixed around very specific ship classes. [Within reason of course, but many times not used to give situational advantage or options.]

Suggestions: Cloaks speed penalties need to be more standardized. Its kind of wild that the upgrade to the T1 Cloak is a T2 with -90% speed penalty.

Standard Cloaks needs variances of 0-5...IE ending with 0-5...and variability so there are advantages and disadvantages to fitting them. 95/90/85/80/75...etc.

Covert Cloaks we only have two currently...T2 Cov Op and Smokescreen. There should be a bit wider variety and some slight differences between them. Maybe different Cov Op Cloaks have slight bonuses in faster targeting realignment, or small bonuses to speed under cloak or better targeting. Maybe adding a few more Cov Op Cloak module variants would be of interest.

Giving certain Recons speed/align bonuses under cloak effects might be of interest as well. Adjustments would side buff BLOPs.

[dapper ruin]

No

[dusty ibex]

https://tenor.com/view/blinking-eyes-white-guy-blinking-meme-what-huh-gif-26334322

[sonic pebble]

I mean...I didn't say nerf.

[fleet mesa]

Getting back to ships:

Problem - Vindicator. Issues with capacitor, range and tracking at right range. It has vivid dead space zone where it can do nothing.

Suggestion: add one mid slot to Vindicator.

Expected outcome:

• flexibility for cap stability or MWD/AB options
• tracking / range
• sensor booster + web for PVE

Hope someone love this ship and want to make it great again to pilot

[steep needle]

This just in, every tournament team is running the vindi. What could have caused this?

[ebon turret]

ship balance has been fairly stable for 20 years
lets just start adding random slots to ships that have been consistently used to high effect since they were added

lets just add a mid slot to the vindi because muh feelings says its a good idea

even though the vindi is already in a totally fine place

nothing will go wrong if we just add an extra mid slot to the vindi for no reason other than the guy with 40 kills in 12 years thought the vindi sucks

[novel scaffold]

ship with 90% web is weak outside web range

wow kinda crazy how that works

[dapper ruin]

no its not. It needs more dakka

[ebon turret]

yer ccp should give it 200m/s base speed as well

and a 20% per level falloff bonus

[dapper ruin]

needs to become the new and only meta

blaster vindi at 0

[safe imp]

milintarctrooper has been warned. || Rule 5

[void geyser]

Let's keep posting in here constructive and actually on the topic of ship balance feedback and such

going through all of it is already enough of a hassle as is

this goes for other people as well

thank you.

[coral night]

So, not trying to be a dick or anything, but if we were provided with specific ships to comment about, we could provide more focused feedback. Like if you were thinking about changing a specific ship, but wanted feedback about how it could be tweaked which wouldn't totally break the meta, we could do that.

[novel scaffold]

I think if youre genuinely trying to give constructive feedback on a ship you have sufficient experience interacting with and a legitimate grievance with its current balance you wouldnt have to be given a guide post to submit feedback for it.

[rancid parcel]

i remember when this thread was about the issues with carriers and how to fix them

pepperidge farm remembers

[nimble sage]

YOU KNOW WHAT LETS FIRE IT UP AGAIN

CARRIERS BAD WE NEED TO BUFF FIGHTERS SO THEY ARE ACTAULLY USABLE OVER HAW DREADS !11!11!1!1!!

[dusty ibex]

I’d rather have 5% power grid added to the Loki than carriers tbh.

But yeah fuck it. Carriers need fighter application nerf rolled back. Fuck it, the game is gonna die let’s have fun with the caps and give carriers a reason to undock and be silly in space.

[fleet mesa]

Guys, another big question to you regards smart bombs

It seams we do not have any ships with specific bonus to smart bombs, damage improvement modules or implants.
Don’t you think about some development in that direction?

[lean sapphire]

oh yes please give us ships that make SBs even more broken

[fleet mesa]

Is SB broken?

[lean sapphire]

kinda, in the right situation if used right

or have you never been caught in a SB gatecmp?

[spare tangle]

i mean smartbomb gate camps target shuttles and frigates/destroyers right?

[fleet mesa]

The way that people used them maybe broken, but in reality - this is not the only way how to use it …

[lean sapphire]

Abhazon camp easily killed wrongly fit cruiser too

Br's

[spare tangle]

and needs several battleships with full smartbombs highs

[lean sapphire]

yes, are you telling me you want a ship that doesnt need to sacrafice as much to use them?

it would make SB gatecamping the norm on every fucking gate

[spare tangle]

i wouldnt want a ship that does extra damage with smartbombs

or well i mean not on anything with 8 highslots atleast

would be funny to have a frigate with like 10KM smartbombs

[lean sapphire]

yes, good idea lets give the proteus SB dmg bonus then

(this is sarcasm for those who missed it)

[spare tangle]

outside gate camps and on capitals or maraurders i rarely see smartbombs get used

[nimble sage]

And while we are here lets give praxises a SB damage bonus :)

/s

[lean sapphire]

oh yeah, certainly

[lean sapphire]

thats plenty of uses

there is no need for more

[spare tangle]

yeah theres plenty of uses i just dont see any of them get used often outside certian things

[spare tangle]

anyway trigs have a bonus to smartbomb capitor use was it?

[nimble sage]

not to damage or range

[spare tangle]

if you want a ship with smart bomb range/dmg bonuses it would be like a frigate that's dedicated to clear like drones or something and not cruisers or above

[sonic pebble]

Well if we did it on that line it might be worthwhile in discuss the modules in combination to that hull type.

Because any frigate with Smart Bomb bonuses would probably end up with a medium smart bomb used...and not the intended small smart bombs.

Points to Triglavian ships with already built in Smart Bomb 50% less capacitor activation. Although they are balanced by highslot amounts.

But besides the drone/firewall niche, how would this frigate be used? Because smart bombs would be PVP oriented. Do we want to consider it being used for ganking or PVE?

Not trying to kill the idea, but asking how would this be used...and do we want to auto balance it due to the potential of people using it for certain content.

[fleet mesa]

Guys, we have a lot of modules that you can fit limited number of them. CCP can easily make a limit for each ship how many SB you can fit not to create a Death Star in the game. The battleships with 8 SBs create a lot of issues, but in practice besides camping gate where did you see massive use of SBs?

I am aware of those type of mechanics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-1xU52Nzk) , but this is the rare cases - too hard to execute properly.

[dapper ruin]

BS with 8 SBs do not create issues. Its part of the game. SB'ing gates to kill pods = good
SB firewall to reduce your attackers ability to use missiles = good
SB in pve = fine, method to rat so what
SB to clear drones = annoying when happens to you, great when you do it

[lean sapphire]

yeah SBs are perfectly fine as they are no need for bonuses etc.

[worn dock]

ccp should create a concord marauder that costs 10b and has a bonus to smartbomb range and damage only in hisec

a krab trap

[ebon turret]

Too hard to execute properly for bads, maybe

Smartbombs are literally fine

Can you stop trying to change every random element of the game for basically no reason other than you randomly somehow conceived some notion that something is underpowered or whatever

[jagged panther]

Know nothing about smartbombs

Dies to them once

“These are overpowered, they must be removed”

[dusty ibex]

I died to an Atron once I think we should nerf them

[rancid parcel]

capital SB when

[lean sapphire]

add it to L5 LP store so i can sell my LP for even more

[rancid parcel]

[quiet umbra]

.
Feedback: Some active counter play to Cynos could prolong the effect blops cyno + standard cyno has on small scale grids engaged in PvP.

Suggestions: Give Hics a cyno inhib script which turns the Hic, effectively, into a mobile cyno inhib that can move without having to spool up. Naturally the hull cannot receive remote assistance while the script is running.

Reasons: The presence of a covert Cyno is the end of content on the smaller scale activities in many cases. Offering a way to prevent standard (I.E not black ops) cynos from being activated immediately could stagger this outcome and prolong the duration a grid remains active.

I guess a simpler way is to prevent Blops battleships from lighting regular cynos, but more interactive solutions with chance for failure (pressing the wrong script for example) seems more fun. Naturally people will try some blingy attempts at self sustaining Hics which will yield cool killmails too. And maybe the redeemer blobs will lose a hull a bit more frequently with a well timed execution on the hostiles part.

[rancid parcel]

this sounds horribly unbalanced

lockout any chance of escalating with zero counterplay on the other side. whoever has a hictor=wins

[lean sapphire]

it is, this chat should need you to take an entry test so you dont propose something stupid

[rancid parcel]

and yeah i get cynos+blops can feel way too pervasive at times, this would swing it so far in the opposite direction it would ruin a large part of null and low sec. hictors online that can mobile bubble, infinite point, light cynos, and scramble cynos. awesome.

[rancid parcel]

99% of the people here disappear