Sparks do seem like the main issue. So, what if stations weren't lockable, but only owners could actually spark into them. This would mitigate many of the potential griefing tactics that have been brought up here while finding a middle-ground in the currently existing system.

Was gone for a bit and just checked killboards. Looks like everything is in splendid order. CIR & Co. is doing well and everyone else is still bad at the game for because they neither have pvp skills nor a sufficient number of heavy mk2 pilots.

Glad to see that this is still resulting in very vibrant PVP across all islands. I am curious though, as there seems to be a distinct lack of pvp on gamma. Did they turn it off on these new and fancy islands, or are people just not allowed to go there (lol).

--

People play to have fun. For some, the fun comes from denying other players fun, and that's ok. Personally, I've stopped having any hopes for the game based on both population and mechanics development and I've uninstalled for the last time months ago.

Cheers, folks.

P.S. Talking about content is kinda amusing. CIR creates its own content and doesn't need anything new, no? Those that think new bots and mods are going to bring people back into the game are pretty foolish, imo., and I kinda hope that the devs don't waste time and money on that kinda naivete.

Ville: Ya, I remember those fleets and i'm glad that they've fallen out of popularity. That kinda stuff wasn't really fun. That being said, longer range stuff has also been nerfed a bit because your follows now have to be people that are great at multi-tasking or actual follow-pilots.

Overall, we're seeing a lot more self-amping and a lot less logi. I'm not really expecting this to change anytime soon because there aren't enough spare pilots around.

Anyway, I don't think that range-fit heavies deserve any more dps than they currently have, or even any improved ewar defense. This is a specialisation that kind of works and has proper downsides and tangible benfits. I think it's a bit different when you're going with double amps and double eccms because you're basically giving up almost as much as you do for a range-fit, but if you're a bit outnumbered and the enemy relies on ewar (let's not go crazy here--let's say 20 v 30), you're still going to get jammed out very frequently because ecms can be stacked, which translates into superior numbers getting guaranteed jams vs hardened bots. The obvious solution to this would be limiting the amount of ECMs you can apply to a bot to two. I've brought this up a number of times already, but it's never really been discussed. I think it's a potentially good step that could be taken to help re-balance/re-design ecms.

Improving SS for mechs could be interesting as well. The problem is that this could mess light-ewars up pretty well. Thoughts on how to avoid making em useless?

Edit: Before the wrong stuff gets focused on, the point of the above example is not that superior numbers win, but that countering ewar with ECCMs is currently not working well enough. If RSAs were common for all bots, this wouldn't be an issue, really, because those two additional headslots make all the difference--but RSAs aren't really common anymore.

@Alf Have you considered the entropy thing/found a feasible way to implement it yet? I think transitioning to pseudo-random would help a ton with some of the frustration that ECMs can cause. That being said, I do think that the risk-reward equation of ECCMs kinda needs to be re-evaluated too, it's just tricky to find the right tool/balance there.

lol @ the claims of injectors being not used on ewars. also, feel free to repeat that test as per your scenario, tund. I sure hope you can get the artemis to lock faster than 2.5 secs

http://pastebin.com/ZpbZ38cu (Vaga w/ 3 ECMs vs a Kain MK2 w/ 2 amps and 2 eccms.)

That Kain took almost 5 minutes to take that Vaga out because that's how long its injector charges lasted. But sure ... take out those two ECCMs, apply all 4 ECMs to an arti ... and then see how long it takes that arti to kill the vaga. My guess: about a minute after the vaga's dry.

Well, this predictably turned into a corp dialogue thread
It's a shame because I think you're making good points. Right now, Perp is doing great at discouraging PVP by having everything stacked heavily in favour of the numerically superior opponent (and this includes ewar).

The worst offender are teleports, imo. I don't know what happened pre-steam, but not being able to escape at all unless your opponent is using a mech class one higher than yours and doesn't have demob Zeniths is crazy because it highly incentivises not engaging at all. Before, engaging a numerically superior opponent was a risk, now it's basically guaranteed to wipe 80%+ of your fleet.

Always good for an amusing post, Stranger. It's a bit megalomaniac and ridiculous to assume that all these posts are due to CIR using ewar.

P.S. Why has nothing new been implemented yet

[Delete me]

This is unacceptable. In the new meta, the Ictus won't be able to fulfill its role unless it can neut through terrain. Also, it's missing an accumulator recharge bonus--it should be able to recharge at least as fast as a Waspish MK2!

@Syndic

Feel free to repeat these tests with different configs. As for the results ... no, the bots weren't jammed 100% of the time, but i'd argue that they were still rendered ineffective. Also, you could use all 4 ecms and increase the chance of completely jamming both bots. Problem is, this wasn't really needed. Sure, the vaga died both times, but it also jammed the Kain sufficiently to cancel out all damage it did (as long as the injector was active). It also held its own for two and a half minutes against a Mesmer Mk2.

We do agree on the solution though. Look at tuners, then see how stuff works out. Limiting ecms to two per bot also seems like a reasonable step beyond that. Oh, and the entropy thing, of course.