Eve-Online on a Technical Level

Here’s my current Cyclone fitting. I can solo any level 3 mission, although for some I might have to position myself carefully so as not to draw all the aggro at once.

5x 650mm prototype siege cannons
3x Limos heavy launchers

afterburner II
medium shield boost II
boost amp II
invuln field
large cap battery II

4x Local power diags

Eventually I’ll probably learn to fly a Typhoon, but I’m not in big hurry. I’m also interested in Muninns, although I’ve heard conflicting stories about their effectiveness.

Muninns suck, unfortunately. With the HP buff, their increased alpha really doesn’t matter all that much. Without pimping them out with T2 rigs, their range is mediocre and they’re beaten by other mid-range support. Even fully pimped they lose out to Zealots and Eagles.

They can, in the right circumstances, serve as acceptable anti-support firepower in a fleet, but they’re not a decent ship, unfortunately.

Speaking of which, I have a Muninn I can sell to you cheap… :smiley:

My mind is still not made up on whether CCP’s proposed changes are the best way to go about a fix but the speed issue definitely needs fixing. EVE is all about having a variety of setups and ways to do things so there is always a rock/paper/scissors mechanic at work. When the game comes to a point where there are just default setups, and considering anything else is a waste of time, something is broken.

I must say as an almost exclusively Amarr pilot (combat ships anyway) I am glad to see something that gives a drawback to using an MWD. Amarr ships are seriously hampered when fitting an MWD but then it was almost a requirement you fit one anyway. Will be nice to have ABs as a reasonable choice.

And yeah…Falcon’s are a bit imbalanced. CCP has always been of the opinion that when you engage you should face genuine risk. Sitting 200km away and lazily locking up ships left and right and easily getting away if someone actually does manage to bother you is lame.

Personally I would like to see a range falloff for jammers. After a certain range their effectiveness should start to nosedive. That way is becomes a tactical choice for the jammer…get in close(ish) where it is dangerous but you are most effective or stay far away and safe but be rather ineffective. Not really thought that one all the way through TBH but off the cuff I like the sound of it.

Not true.
When you siege a manned POS, do you bring dreads? When you fight another fleet, do you bring turreted sniper ships? When you want to haul large quantities of high value material though 0.0, do you use a jump capable ship? When you want to ensure that you have the best chance of getting through hostile bubble camps, do you fit a MWD and cloak? When you want to engage enemy super caps, do you bring a heavy and/or light 'dictor? If you want the most effective use of your time to gather minerals, do you use a Hulk? If you want the fastest locking fast tackle, do you use an interceptor? If you want ships that are cost effective, do you use T1 hulls for which you can get full insurance? If you want to engage in recon probing that’s the fastest possible, do you use a cov ops? If you want to have a snowball’s chance in hell of catching a shuttle/pod on a gate, do you use a dictor? Etc, etc, etc.

Just because situations have a default best-fit does not mean that there’s any problem. It’s unreasonable to expect every situation to have multiple options which are all equally good.

There’s a reason, for instance, that shield tanked missile boats are the default favorite for low-skilled PvE, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Players aren’t stupid, they can look at a situation and realize what works best, and they’ll tend to use it. That players realized speed tanking was most efficient for small-gang, counter-blob warfare means nothing other than that it was the most efficient means for doing just that.

Sweeping, ill thought out changes are not a benefit to the game. CCP obviously doesn’t and didn’t even know how this new nerf will effect the game, which is why they’ve requested that we all pile onto SISI.
And now, for instance, we are left with no effective, anti-blob small-gang measure. And CCP still hasn’t/can’t/won’t fix lag in large fleet battles.

Not good.

Yes, speed needed a fix because its mechanics were unbalanced wrt Polies and Snakes specifically, but your logic is flawed and would result in anything that was the most efficient/effective, being nerfed. Just like nanos, sniper turreted battleships are the default for fleet combat, generally DD tanked. Should we eliminate those too as a viable option? Especially since, barring your opponent actually having a balanced fleet, intelligent pilots and effective tactics (and some luck), you can simply fight aligned and get out of any fight, too. And, why, if you’re going to fight cap ships, you either need other cap ships or a large number of specialty ships, just like if you were fighting nanos.
Neuter cap ships too?

As it is, rather than change a few things at a time and see how that went, CCP is using us all as beta testers and completely, totally, changing how PvP and especially small-gang PvP works. Bad call on their part, and speed tanking will pretty much be a thing of the past without them now revamping tracking, sig radius and missile stats as well.

It’s a poor nerf that requires them to rewrite virtually every facet of ship dynamics.

But we’ve done this argument before and if you remain unconvinced, you’ll remain unconvinced.

In the Travian game my village is named, “Velator”, and I have been attacked a lot by “Munin”.

Default best ships for a given job is fine. Comparing highly specialized ships such as a Hulk to other miners is hardly relevant to this.

The point is not that one ship class tends to excel at a particular job. The point is what response can other players make to that choice? There are lots of mixes of ships that can take on a sieging dread or a dictor or interceptor. Further, those ships are balanced to do their particular jobs well and nothing else well. CovOps is great at spying…not much else. That’s fine.

The problem with nanoes is they beget more nanoes. The only really good response to nano is more nano. When you are fitting your ship and you default to seeking a nano setup because anything else is deficient things are amiss. Sure, some ships are meant to nano and that is fine but not every ship. The ships meant to be speed demons are generally gimped for balance in another way (generally low DPS).

CCP noted that many ships are completely avoiding ALL damage. Missiles cannot catch and/or damage fast ships and neither can drones. Turrets are not all that much better barring the occasional lucky hit. More is CCP’s intent all along to force people to commit to a fight (hence the warp stab nerf). Nanoships are largely a get out of jail free card everytime unless the pilot gets very unlucky or screws up.

Bringing back some rhyme and reason to ships. Look at the blog again where the ship classes follow a curve you would expect so ships like inties are where they are supposed to be on through the classes to battleships (looks like stealth bombers are getting a speed boost). Not sure on what basis you can argue against that.

As CCP also noted this speed is literally breaking their physics engine so clearly not an intended state of affairs.

I can be convinced of many things and I am not saying the proposed changes are the best way to go about things but the howls of protest that there is no problem whatsoever is patently wrong and IMO coming from people who were the previous warp stabbed out the ass pilots. Pretty much the true carebears of EVE.