So the CSM spent 31 pages talking about itself.

[Vile rat]

Hey CSM dudes, next time can you keep the inane bullshit out of the logs? This could be like a 5 page report after that happens.

-edit- Up to page 64,

"CCP Xhagen asked when we could expect ring mining. CCP Soundwave said after the POS work because it would most likely use the same team - best case scenario would be winter expansion
2013."

lol.

-edit 2-

Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed, and people could
set it so that only the owner or a director of the corp that owned the starbase would be able to unmoor the ship. CCP Greyscale said that he was thinking that people would have to get to 0 meters
from the mooring module in order to moor a ship, which would mean that there would be a natural
limit of however many ships could fit at the mooring point, and that people would have to carefully
consider their starbase layout to take this into account.


UAxDEATH asked about if personal POSes would still allow directors to un-moor ships, and
Greyscale said probably not, but that corp POSes would, because corps need to be able to take
down a tower.


CCP Greyscale turned the discussion to reinforcement timers. His proposal is that starbases would
have a smaller core fuel tank which could be locked down for 24 hours. If you had a large starbase
that was using a lot of fuel, the core tank would only last for 24-48 hours. A smaller starbase might
last a week or a month, with the attacker needing to come back every day to shoot the starbase.
This would be the downside to having a large starbase, as you would be more vulnerable to attack.
Elise asked about moored ships when a starbase is destroyed, and Greyscale said that they would all
un-moor and be able to be stolen

thumbs up!

[Camorra]

Elise asked about moored ships when a starbase is destroyed, and Greyscale said that they would all
un-moor and be able to be stolen

thumbs up!

Indeed thumbs up!

[Vile rat]

After a brief pause for CCP Soundwave to finish recording more notes, Two step asked about the
possibility of having customized corporate logos, much like the customizable alliance logos we
currently have. Two step explained that there wouldn't be a need for CCP to moderate corp logos if
there was a flag button that could mark a logo as inappropriate.


Two step: “I understand this is some overhead for you guys, but if there was some form of
community vetting, to get the penises out.... and not have to use the funny logo designer”


CCP Soundwave: “I'd rather have a few penises and a good system, than a bad system.”



More dicks. Give us all the dicks.


-edit-

CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with
a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage,
and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2
minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must
commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage
before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to
make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle,
and then a warp out.

Way to go greyscale. You came up with a good idea but now it's doomed because you came up with it.





-anotheredit-

"Elise took issue with the notion and stated simply “you should not be able to opt out of Capital warfare. You should not be able to combat an entire Supercap fleet with only subcaps.”"

Disagree strongly Elise. Disagree. You should not be able to combat an entire subcap fleet with only supercaps.

[ihaveahelmet]

Boosts in their current state are absurdly broken.

Everything relating to the leadership functions is messed up in one or another, in my opinion. From the overly convoluted way bonuses are applied in the fleet to some of the bonuses, ships and yeah... Everything.

There was a really cool proposal posted on pl.com about the offgrid boosting issue that I shall just c/p here for simplicity's sake:

Currentl?, ?ff-grid boosting does need fixing, however not in the way that you are probably thinking.

?ff-gr?d boosting in safespots in space should not be changed. These people can be caught by probing them down‚ or slowl? b?okmarking your way to glory. I tihnk I have shown that it is possible with a decent investment (lg virtues) to catch off-grid boosting t3's. So I think that is fine.

However, boosting from a P?S ?s completely safe. There is no risk whatsoever‚ and it is literall? imp?ssible to counter. All that for a mere 400mil/month and a setup P?S. It g?ves the defender an incredible advantage and offers a strong incentive for the defender to never leave their home system. [...] I think that for someone to recieve gang bonuses, be it from a t3, a Titan, or even an industrial that the character who is boosting should be put at some risk of dying, ala boosting outside of a P?S.

So, I would propose that gang mods not be allowed to be run from ?nside of a POS.

I don't agree with every single point brought forward in that proposal, but I believe the gist of it would be a better solution than a complete removal of offgrid boosting. Either way this isn't really related to the broader topic of the CSM minutes so I won't go more in depth about the better ways of fixing the boosting thing.

ed:

-anotheredit-

"Elise took issue with the notion and stated simply “you should not be able to opt out of Capital warfare. You should not be able to combat an entire Supercap fleet with only subcaps.”"

Disagree strongly Elise. Disagree. You should not be able to combat an entire subcap fleet with only supercaps.

I won't pretend to speak for Elise, but I don't think that's what he meant at all nor what happened in the relevant example. I heavily doubt the unsupported supercarriers posed a serious threat to the hostile subcaps, just like those didn't pose a threat to the supers. The best both fleets could have done is stare at each other until one made moves to leave, which the opposite fleet couldn't really prevent.

[Vile rat]

But I think unescorted supercaps should be extremely vulnerable.

[Ruismies]

Offgrid links are pretty stupidly broken precisely because they're so strong you're required to field them in any gang you take. The advantages are so massive that you're incentivized to use them in everything from "solo" roaming to large-scale fleet fights. Also I'm pretty sure nanogangs were able to meek by before offgrid links existed~

I'm going to bite, the problem with offgrid boosting isn't something that is easily fixed. On top of it making life harder to miners (sure lets have that rorq sitting in that belt, i personally wouldn't mind), we're also faced with the fact that popping a command ship is piss easy when fleet sized increase, so at this point i'd say it'd be a bad call to fully take offgrid boosting out of the game.

I think we can all agree that offgrid boosting became the fab after t3's were introduced. Now what is it that t3's excelll at? They're small, can be made close to unprobable and very slippery. So lets rather try fixing the issue by touching those points. First off, lets cut the slipperiness of t3's when in command processor mode, letsay deny interdiction, have command processor modules themselves increase signature radious, anything to make it hard to fly around with ease in a t3 designed for offgrid boosting. So basicly what you'd have left is an off grid boosting t3 that you can keep safe next to a pos but moving it without protecting it (wether it's good intel or just having ur fleet with it when moving) would be unwise. Next up, lets make probing those things easier, if you bring an off grid booster t3 to a system, it should be easy for the opposing force to probe it out, if they've been smart enough to have prober in their fleet. So basicly, just make the t3 more vulnerable as an offgrid booster.

Now while we nerf offgrid boosting itself, we should remember that it does effect everything as a whole too. Now the big problem has always been the fact that fleet commands were never designed to hold on field if theres 500 maelstroms shooting at it. So lets actually look at the problem here, losing that command ship on the field means you lose ur links which sucks donkey balls. So rather than just buffing fleet commands to 1 million ehp lets look at boosting itself. What if we made every thing in the fleet able to boost and the best ones only apply, heres an example:

Fleet has 250 members, it has 10 command ships, 4 vultures, 2 claymores, 2 sleipnirs and 2 nighthawks. Vultures have 3 siege links each, nighthawks 1 siege link, claymores 3 skirmish and sleips 1 skirmish link.
Now the best skilled(if all same skills then random) vulture and claymore pilots siege/skirmish links apply to the whole fleet. The nighthawk and sleip pilots links are also taken to account, and if they have better skills on them for that one link, they'll boost the one link type for the whole fleet.

If a command ship dies that is actually boosting at that time the fleet, then another commands link will start doing the boosting with his skills. So basicly, you can have 100 same links up and running, only best one applies and when that one disappears the next one starts affecting. What this does basicly, is taking the boosting out of the fleet hiararchy and there will be no more a designated booster. This only applies to boosting itself ofcourse, so fleet commanders still need to get those fleet command 5's so they can field a full fleet, but he doesn't have to touch any of the boosting skils, as the highest skilled pilot in fleet will apply them to the whole fleet.

So what we'd have here would be a way of bypassing the need to switch booster places in fleet and having a use for multiple boosters in fleet, actually making a field command ship with one link only a useful thing to have in smaller gangs (or bc with a link). And ofcourse, there's been talk about booster destroyers, an even smaller/cheaper ship. Also in a big ass fleet fight, if they kill ur booster, well look over here, got more than one and the boosts switch seamlessly.

Now that's what I think bout this issue, someone get matches for the flamethrowers.

[Hilmar Keller]

I didn't bother reading that whole wall of text about boosts, but I see you want to nerf T3s as a whole to address the offgrid boosting problem.

That's fucking retarded.

[jimmychrist]

Off-grid boosting seems very strange to me. Why not have out-of-system boosting, or I'm-not-even-logged-in-but-hey-hey-hey-here's-some-more-EHP boosting while we're at it?

[Vile rat]

You should never get bonuses from something that's invulnerable. Gotta have skin in the game bitches.

[Hilmar Keller]

I agree that the problem with CS vs. T3 boosts is twofold: CS are easily picked out of a crowd whereas T3 boosters in T3 fleets aren't, and T3s are better at boosts anyway.

I don't think this means T3s need a nerf. I think boosts should be targets of opportunity like logis and FCs. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than making the fleet boosters more visible - the graphical effect of links should be very visible, even zoomed out. They also shouldn't be able to boost off-grid; it's probably the most retarded aspect of solo PVP and it's completely risk-averse.

[Tsubutai]

I'm not a fan of link mechanics in general, but T3 links are far from invulnerable unless they're sat in a POS. If you're in an area where lots of hostiles use them, buy a virtue set. They pay themselves off surprisingly quickly what with DG co-processors being ~100m apiece.

[ihaveahelmet]

Now that's what I think bout this issue, someone get matches for the flamethrowers.

I'll just call you clueless, less trouble than picking apart everything ill-informed, poor thought out or simply outright retarded in that pointless essay of yours.

[Phey Onat]

At a minimum, you shouldn't be able to get bonuses from anything in a POS. Nothing gets through that shield and nothing should get out (looking at you too rorqual).

[Teth]

The issue really is that the design goal for T3s with command processors was probably to let you run 1 link with a larger bonus than a command ship which would naturally run 3.

The players of course then realise that if you fit nothing other than 3 links and eccm you can have 3 absurdly bonused links and no survivability.

If I have interpreted that correctly then surely the simple fix is to just hard cap the number of links a T3 can run instead of the soft cap of fitting requirements.

[WNxWolfy]

The issue really is that the design goal for T3s with command processors was probably to let you run 1 link with a larger bonus than a command ship which would naturally run 3.

The players of course then realise that if you fit nothing other than 3 links and eccm you can have 3 absurdly bonused links and no survivability.

If I have interpreted that correctly then surely the simple fix is to just hard cap the number of links a T3 can run instead of the soft cap of fitting requirements.

I agree with this. Make T3s unable to use command processors and T3 boosting problem solved. But even so a CS will be a massive force multiplier in a large fleet and a very valuable asset in a smaller fleet.

[Raketefrau]

Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed, and people could
set it so that only the owner or a director of the corp that owned the starbase would be able to unmoor the ship. CCP Greyscale said that he was thinking that people would have to get to 0 meters from the mooring module in order to moor a ship, which would mean that there would be a natural limit of however many ships could fit at the mooring point, and that people would have to carefully consider their starbase layout to take this into account.

I'd like more exposition on how this works with the "no pos bubble" thing. I mean, it sounds like there's no force field around POSes in this scenario, in which case it seems like mooring a supercap is like begging to lose it.

[Ruismies]

I didn't bother reading that whole wall of text about boosts, but I see you want to nerf T3s as a whole to address the offgrid boosting problem.

That's fucking retarded.

It seems fucking retarded that you'd not read a post but make a very retarded comment on it that has no basis on the post itself but rather shows your obsessiveness in posting.
I'll be nice and put it short, nerf offgrid boosting t3's, make it harder for a t3 in offgrid boosting fit to move about without getting caught.

[Hilmar Keller]

I think we can all agree that offgrid boosting became the fab after t3's were introduced. Now what is it that t3's excelll at? They're small, can be made close to unprobable and very slippery. So lets rather try fixing the issue by touching those points. First off, lets cut the slipperiness of t3's when in command processor mode, letsay deny interdiction, have command processor modules themselves increase signature radious, anything to make it hard to fly around with ease in a t3 designed for offgrid boosting. So basicly what you'd have left is an off grid boosting t3 that you can keep safe next to a pos but moving it without protecting it (wether it's good intel or just having ur fleet with it when moving) would be unwise. Next up, lets make probing those things easier, if you bring an off grid booster t3 to a system, it should be easy for the opposing force to probe it out, if they've been smart enough to have prober in their fleet. So basicly, just make the t3 more vulnerable as an offgrid booster.

This was the part to which I was replying, which is rendered entirely moot by a T3 booster sitting in POS shields. So it doesn't change the fact that there would be offgrid boosters and that they'd be superior to CS. That's why it's bad.

E: My point is that you have to force the boosters on grid as a first step, then make the boosters visible as a second.

[Ruismies]

This was the part to which I was replying, which is rendered entirely moot by a T3 booster sitting in POS shields. So it doesn't change the fact that there would be offgrid boosters and that they'd be superior to CS. That's why it's bad.

E: My point is that you have to force the boosters on grid as a first step, then make the boosters visible as a second.

While it doesn't get t3's out of posses, it demolishes the possibility of freely moving them around, devaluing them as pure link ships on the go. But i will say you're correct in implying that denying link usage inside a pos would be favourable and am inclined to agree here. The bonus t3's themselves give could be changed, as i recall it was said that maybe change em to give a bonus for all link types while at the same time dropping the percentage of bonus they give per lvl of subsystem skill.

Dear ihaveahelmet, while my suggestion most likely has badly thought out concequences, i do think this is a forum and the essence of forum is debate. I will still say the freedom of boosting inside fleets would be beneficial to eve, giving more value to command ships. The fact that the idea itself presents it's own can of worms doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined. There are always ways of improving , you can even just have different link types prioriticed in a fleet to force fc's to prioritice one links efficiency over another ones.

With this said, i highly doubt ccp wants to make command links work like an aoe effect, we all know that'd mean there needs to be checks on ranges for all ships in fleet and they are trying to cut that shit from cluttering servers, and i don't see any other way of implementing effects only on grid.

[Manfred Hideous]

Only you think they were decent suggestions; everyone else thinks you're a prick.

HAHAHA. Welcome to Kugu, Two Step.

I'm still reading (GD this is a big report) but the starbase ideas seem kind of cool. I can't wait for someone to design the first stealth deathstar. If they're killable, then I hope the people inside can be podded while they sleep irl. The tears would be epic.

Hopefully they're small enough to start so a single player will be able to set up a reasonable base of ops without spending a fortune.

[twostep]

I'd like more exposition on how this works with the "no pos bubble" thing. I mean, it sounds like there's no force field around POSes in this scenario, in which case it seems like mooring a supercap is like begging to lose it.

You should read up in the minutes a little more about mooring. The idea is that when moored, there would be a mini force field around the ship that ws moored, so while the POS was alive, the moored ship could not be shot.

[Manfred Hideous]

And why even shoot them (unless they're not worth stealing)? The ships would unmoor in the event the station is killed. They'd be loot.

The RF talk left me confused though. Are we basically talking about refillable stront bays, rather than a true RF schedule?

[Helios Black]

You should read up in the minutes a little more about mooring. The idea is that when moored, there would be a mini force field around the ship that ws moored, so while the POS was alive, the moored ship could not be shot.

Yes, we'd all love to read more of your whining for several hundred pages. Do you have a blog we can read too?

[Vile rat]

Yes, we'd all love to read more of your whining for several hundred pages. Do you have a blog we can read too?

That's not really fair Two step is awesome and didn't get properly represented by those logs.

[Helios Black]

That's not really fair Two step is awesome and didn't get properly represented by those logs.

I hope that's sarcasm because those logs are the direct interactions...

[Teh Ashen]

I agree that the problem with CS vs. T3 boosts is twofold: CS are easily picked out of a crowd whereas T3 boosters in T3 fleets aren't, and T3s are better at boosts anyway.

I don't think this means T3s need a nerf. I think boosts should be targets of opportunity like logis and FCs. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than making the fleet boosters more visible - the graphical effect of links should be very visible, even zoomed out. They also shouldn't be able to boost off-grid; it's probably the most retarded aspect of solo PVP and it's completely risk-averse.

Ever tried to probe a boosting Loki? Nigh impossible if they have enough ECCM. Watched my CEO in a maxed skilled cheetah try to probe one for 30 min, closest he could get was 93%.

[Hilmar Keller]

Ever tried to probe a boosting Loki? Nigh impossible if they have enough ECCM. Watched my CEO in a maxed skilled cheetah try to probe one for 30 min, closest he could get was 93%.

Ever tried reading my posts? I said they shouldn't work off-grid.

[twostep]

And why even shoot them (unless they're not worth stealing)? The ships would unmoor in the event the station is killed. They'd be loot.

The RF talk left me confused though. Are we basically talking about refillable stront bays, rather than a true RF schedule?

The idea was that the attacker would have to come back every day for some period of time to shoot at the POS. Greyscale wanted this because he wants it to be hard to knock out a small raiding base in a remote area.

I worry about a system like that in w-space, because people are not going to want to have to invade another wormhole for weeks to collect all the loot, so I suggested that the defender should have to do something every day to keep the timer going. That way, if you had total superiority, it wouldn't take weeks to kill a POS.

I'd also point out that this seemed like an area that was a little less thought out than the rest of the POS stuff, and was certainly something Greyscale was still thinking hard about.

[twostep]

Yes, we'd all love to read more of your whining for several hundred pages. Do you have a blog we can read too?

http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com

[ihaveahelmet]

Ever tried to probe a boosting Loki? Nigh impossible if they have enough ECCM. Watched my CEO in a maxed skilled cheetah try to probe one for 30 min, closest he could get was 93%.

You need 3 virtues with max skills or a full set with 4/4, then it's nbd to probe out.

[Teh Ashen]

Ever tried reading my posts? I said they shouldn't work off-grid.

I didn't say I disagreed with you.

[Calderus]

Ever tried to probe a boosting Loki? Nigh impossible if they have enough ECCM. Watched my CEO in a maxed skilled cheetah try to probe one for 30 min, closest he could get was 93%.

My boosting loki has been probed 4 times in the last 3 months. My tiny alliance has also killed 2 boosting lokis in the same time. But apparently CEOs should have their probing skill boosted because yours is retarded.

Edit: my point being, its not that hard if you put in minimal effort, and a nice loot pinata when you do it as many fit DG co-procs and such on them. They're not invulnerable, or even really very safe against a skilled prober.

[Manfred Hideous]

The idea was that the attacker would have to come back every day for some period of time to shoot at the POS. Greyscale wanted this because he wants it to be hard to knock out a small raiding base in a remote area.

I worry about a system like that in w-space, because people are not going to want to have to invade another wormhole for weeks to collect all the loot, so I suggested that the defender should have to do something every day to keep the timer going. That way, if you had total superiority, it wouldn't take weeks to kill a POS.

I'd also point out that this seemed like an area that was a little less thought out than the rest of the POS stuff, and was certainly something Greyscale was still thinking hard about.

So what was that, some kind of mini RF mode that has an open window for shooting X hours per day for weeks? Could you kill it quickly if you applied enough deeps?

I'm of two minds about it. It WOULD make a single TZ corp have the ability to station remotely (GW for instance) where there aren't many stations and it's more easily configured for lots of prod slots, so indy peeps would like it as much or more than a real outpost.

Really the only downside IMO is wormhole space but even there, it would make lining there rule (I'm assuming the mods would include a clone vat array?).

Are they fueled or do they exist in space like outposts? This might be a way to have destructible outposts of a sort.

[Zagdul]

Remove boosting modules.

Change the Leadership Spec skills give the bonuses passively instead of unlocking the use of a module. Maybe the skill can now give some kind of range bonus or something.

Problem solved?

The role for Command Ships would need to be re-thought. Potentially putting them into a black ops role and/or introduce a new bomb into EVE focused on capitals. You can now bomb capitals/supers, but you'd have to invest the value in them to do it.

[Gothic Light]

Remove boosting modules.

Change the Leadership Spec skills give the bonuses passively instead of unlocking the use of a module. Maybe the skill can now give some kind of range bonus or something.

Problem solved?

The role for Command Ships would need to be re-thought. Potentially putting them into a black ops role and/or introduce a new bomb into EVE focused on capitals. You can now bomb capitals/supers, but you'd have to invest the value in them to do it.

Did you get a concussion over the last few days? Everything your writing is fucktarded.

[Zagdul]

Did you get a concussion over the last few days? Everything your writing is fucktarded.

Irony much?

[Hilmar Keller]

Remove boosting modules.

Change the Leadership Spec skills give the bonuses passively instead of unlocking the use of a module. Maybe the skill can now give some kind of range bonus or something.

Problem solved?

The role for Command Ships would need to be re-thought. Potentially putting them into a black ops role and/or introduce a new bomb into EVE focused on capitals. You can now bomb capitals/supers, but you'd have to invest the value in them to do it.

Not only is this idea poorly thought out; it requires a ton of reworking for ships, a total rehaul of boosts, and the removal/addition of modules.

Plus, it would mean you could boost while cloaked, which makes the problem even worse.

[Manfred Hideous]

Not only is this idea poorly thought out; it requires a ton of reworking for ships, a total rehaul of boosts, and the removal/addition of modules.

Plus, it would mean you could boost while cloaked, which makes the problem even worse.

It'd be easier IMO if the boosting mods had a sig penalty when active making them easy to find as a BC/BS regardless of ECCM.

[Zagdul]

Not only is this idea poorly thought out; it requires a ton of reworking for ships, a total rehaul of boosts, and the removal/addition of modules.

Plus, it would mean you could boost while cloaked, which makes the problem even worse.

And instead you suggest CCP writes out the code/math to determine if someone is on grid or not without breaking the shit out of the code?

I'm of the opinion that the whole boosting system needs a complete re-write anyway. Especially if you're to suggest that people be forced on grid.

[Hilmar Keller]

It's one thing to rework boosts, it's another to involve the reworking of an entire ship class and the modules for which it's specialized.

[Manfred Hideous]

Make those ships much more easily probed and you bet they'll get on grid for protection and reps. Or they'll be warping so much the boosts won't be very active.

[Zagdul]

It's one thing to rework boosts, it's another to involve the reworking of an entire ship class and the modules for which it's specialized.

I mean, if Greyscale is really going to be spending time inventing guns to keep capitals off gates (removing yet another aspect of the sandbox) than why not have a closer look at changing the way buffs work completely? My thought process is that the ship itself is the flaw. Not the boosts. Every other idea is just a band-aid. I hate design that always suggests 'band-aid' fixes to things that should have a serious look at.



OK, two separate things...

Thing one, Reworking of boosts: Boosts as they are are kind of dumb. It's EVE's 'buffing class' and it's their way of implementing this archaic aspect into a fleet it's poor design off the line. Many game developers have found ways to remove the single 'buffer' for a group a long time ago and distribute how they're done amongst multiple people. The reason they did this was because the concept is retarded. Recent trends in mmo's are no longer buffs or boosts for your group that are casted, but instead are side effects of something you do in the game. For example, if someone in a squad command position was an ECM ship, they'd have the ability to boost the people within a certain distance's EWAR capabilities.

Someone running a micro-warp drive near you or pointing a target? All that's required now are skills, which we've trained.

Yes, this requires work, but the way boosts are right now don't need attention tomorrow. It's something that could use a re-write and effort instead of just 'make it work the way I think it should'. Give it a new mechanic so that we don't need to be forced to have an alt off grid boosting our fleets.

Thing two, Re assigning the ship's role isn't the hard part. The way Boosts work is. There currently isn't a battle cruiser class ship for use in black ops. Black ops needs some love.

[Teh Ashen]

It'd be easier IMO if the boosting mods had a sig penalty when active making them easy to find as a BC/BS regardless of ECCM.

What is CCP's logic behind ECCM lowering sig radius and making ships harder to probe? How does it have any effect on ECCMs main purpose: making a ship harder to jam? And heck, don't just add a sig penalty, make the mods broadcast like a cyno. Only way you would be safe would be at a POS or by docking up. Could even make the links cause agression, disallowing insta-docking.

[Gothic Light]

And heck, don't just add a sig penalty, make the mods broadcast like a cyno. Only way you would be safe would be at a POS or by docking up. Could even make the links cause agression, disallowing insta-docking.

Your ideas are awesome and I think you should keep telling everyone about them.

[Fix Lag]

What is CCP's logic behind ECCM lowering sig radius and making ships harder to probe?

[Kitty Vintner]

Holy christ I just read the nullsec section.

if you spend longer talking about how to figure out whether or not members are doing their job than talking about the game's main source of advertising

Well, I mean it would've been a waste of time even if the question didn't answer itself

[Hilmar Keller]

Funny how they can openly discuss how they want to completely replace the current moon goo mechanics with a new one involving active PVE and group participation but any discussion about 0.0 gets NDA'd in the ass.

[Manfred Hideous]

What is CCP's logic behind ECCM lowering sig radius and making ships harder to probe? How does it have any effect on ECCMs main purpose: making a ship harder to jam? And heck, don't just add a sig penalty, make the mods broadcast like a cyno. Only way you would be safe would be at a POS or by docking up. Could even make the links cause agression, disallowing insta-docking.

I wouldn't go that far. That would basically mean giving the opposition a warpin since the booster would more likely be with the main fleet.

[Kitty Vintner]

What is CCP's logic behind ECCM lowering sig radius and making ships harder to probe? How does it have any effect on ECCMs main purpose: making a ship harder to jam? And heck, don't just add a sig penalty, make the mods broadcast like a cyno. Only way you would be safe would be at a POS or by docking up. Could even make the links cause agression, disallowing insta-docking.

ECCM doesn't lower sig radius, it's just probing depends on the ratio of sig radius and sensor strength.

[Prodnovick]

ECCM doesn't lower sig radius, it's just probing depends on the ratio of sig radius and sensor strength.

shhhh