I am adding a new category to this blog site named Reference. It is intended to be the quick link to information I find useful to reference while actually playing Eve. So while playing, a visitor can click the Reference category, and have all the most useful blog posts up for reference while playing. Feel free to provide feedback about what other topics or prior blog posts you think would be useful to include in this category.
Note that if you click the category from the side bar, it will not show all posts. You will have to click the link to view older posts to see the older ones. I'm trying to figure out how to show them all on the same page without that additional hassle, but so far I haven't figured out how. If necessary, I will just go back and repost all the old posts so that they appear in the same date range and will all appear together, but I'm going to spend a little more time researching first to see if I can fix it without such a hackish workaround.
Also, don't forget that I also have a Tools and Programming category that can also be useful, though those aren't necessarily needed on a regular basis, so most of them will most likely not also be included under Reference.
Showing posts with label Gameplay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gameplay. Show all posts
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Monday, January 22, 2018
NPC Damage Types and Weaknesses
This year, I'm going to try to post more immediately useful Eve information. Even though it's available many other places on the web already, I want my own set of pages hosted here that provide all the reference information of interest. Today that means a table of NPC damage types and weaknesses.
| NPC | Damage Type | Weakness Type | |||||||
| Faction | EM | Ki | Th | Ex | EM | Ki | Th | Ex | Ship Alias |
| Amarr | X | X | O | ||||||
| Angel | X | X | X | X | O | Gist | |||
| Blood Raider | X | X | O | Corp | |||||
| Caldari | X | X | O | ||||||
| Gallente | X | X | O | ||||||
| Gurista | X | X | O | ||||||
| Khanid | X | X | O | ||||||
| Minmatar | X | X | X | X | O | ||||
| Mordu | X | X | O | ||||||
| Rogue Drone | X | X | X | X | O | ||||
| Sansha | X | X | O | ||||||
| Serpentis | X | X | O | Core | |||||
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Ending High-Sec Freighter Ganking With 5 People
It would only take 5 devoted souls to end high-sec freighter ganking as we have known it for the last year or longer.
Now 5 is only an estimate, it could be a few more or less. But forget trying to field a fleet of 20+ logistics and electronic warfare ships to prevent freighter ganks. Stop trying to protect the freighters. All we need is a team willing to gank bumper ships. Without bumpers, gank fleets will find it nearly impossible to gank freighters.
The first defense of a bumper is to add tank, which is why a team of 1 or 2 isn't enough. I figure 5 should probably do it. And you don't even need to bother trying to sneak up on them. You can casually fly your fleet over towards the bumper. They will run, which is fine, as that stops the gank. Or they will stay, in which case, gank them! Either way, the freighter goes free.
This may eventually lead to gankers fielding anti-gank fleets to prevent the bumper ganks. While this would be an added challenge, it would also be hilarious to have the roles flipped in such a manner, so I would consider this a win regardless.
This may eventually lead to gankers attempting to gank the bumper gankers. This is okay too. It will divide the ganker fleets making it easier for other anti-gankers to pick them off or stop them with logi and ECM. And you can switch to using a neutral warp in to help protect the bumper gank fleet, just the way gankers use a neutral warp in to help protect the freighter gank fleet.
I have been supportive of this approach for a long time, and willing to participate in such a fleet. I would like the bears and white knights out there to think about it too. It's not for the faint of heart, but there are ways of managing the negative side effects that I am always happy to share with others. And there is nothing like using your opponents own tactics against them to give them the proverbial middle finger.
Now 5 is only an estimate, it could be a few more or less. But forget trying to field a fleet of 20+ logistics and electronic warfare ships to prevent freighter ganks. Stop trying to protect the freighters. All we need is a team willing to gank bumper ships. Without bumpers, gank fleets will find it nearly impossible to gank freighters.
The first defense of a bumper is to add tank, which is why a team of 1 or 2 isn't enough. I figure 5 should probably do it. And you don't even need to bother trying to sneak up on them. You can casually fly your fleet over towards the bumper. They will run, which is fine, as that stops the gank. Or they will stay, in which case, gank them! Either way, the freighter goes free.
This may eventually lead to gankers fielding anti-gank fleets to prevent the bumper ganks. While this would be an added challenge, it would also be hilarious to have the roles flipped in such a manner, so I would consider this a win regardless.
This may eventually lead to gankers attempting to gank the bumper gankers. This is okay too. It will divide the ganker fleets making it easier for other anti-gankers to pick them off or stop them with logi and ECM. And you can switch to using a neutral warp in to help protect the bumper gank fleet, just the way gankers use a neutral warp in to help protect the freighter gank fleet.
I have been supportive of this approach for a long time, and willing to participate in such a fleet. I would like the bears and white knights out there to think about it too. It's not for the faint of heart, but there are ways of managing the negative side effects that I am always happy to share with others. And there is nothing like using your opponents own tactics against them to give them the proverbial middle finger.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
What Is NRDS?
NRDS is a philosophical categorization for the behavior of an organization within Eve. The common categories an organization's philosophical behavior can fall into include:
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
- NPSI: Not Purple, Shoot It
- NBSI: Not Blue, Shoot It
- NRDS: Not Red, Don't Shoot
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI: Nomadic Savages
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI: Closed And Aggressive
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS: Open And Civil
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Why Be NRDS?
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
Who And Where Is NRDS?
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
Thursday, June 25, 2015
When To Use Autopilot
I may have touched on this at some time in the past, but thought I would give it it's own blog post.
Autopilot is a dangerous thing. People like to attack ships on autopilot. Many other pilots out there will advise never to use autopilot, and for the most part, I agree with them.
However, there are a few cases where autopilot is okay.
First, and perhaps most obvious, is if you just don't care about your pod or your cargo. Then go ahead, autopilot away and reach (or maybe reach) your destination while afk.
Second, and the more interesting use, is for docking. Call it autodocking. Set your destination to the station. Engage warp to the station (preferably to an insta-dock bookmark). Once you are in warp, engage autopilot. As soon as your warp ends, autopilot will dock you in the station. This is a cool use for autopilot, because it ensures you get docked as soon as possible, without having to worry about misclicks and operating the user interface through near station lag.
A word of caution about autodocking however. It can backfire if you are not careful. Just make darn sure your destination is set to the station you are heading to. If destination is set to some other station, or something that is not a station, autopilot will try to warp you away as soon as you arrive, exposing you to more danger instead of less. So always double check that destination set before engaging autopilot.
Cheers!
Autopilot is a dangerous thing. People like to attack ships on autopilot. Many other pilots out there will advise never to use autopilot, and for the most part, I agree with them.
However, there are a few cases where autopilot is okay.
First, and perhaps most obvious, is if you just don't care about your pod or your cargo. Then go ahead, autopilot away and reach (or maybe reach) your destination while afk.
Second, and the more interesting use, is for docking. Call it autodocking. Set your destination to the station. Engage warp to the station (preferably to an insta-dock bookmark). Once you are in warp, engage autopilot. As soon as your warp ends, autopilot will dock you in the station. This is a cool use for autopilot, because it ensures you get docked as soon as possible, without having to worry about misclicks and operating the user interface through near station lag.
A word of caution about autodocking however. It can backfire if you are not careful. Just make darn sure your destination is set to the station you are heading to. If destination is set to some other station, or something that is not a station, autopilot will try to warp you away as soon as you arrive, exposing you to more danger instead of less. So always double check that destination set before engaging autopilot.
Cheers!
Friday, April 24, 2015
Ore Reprocessing Changes -- Mosaic
With the Mosaic update, null sec ores are having their minerals changed. Below are tables showing old versus new. As with my previous ore reprocessing table, the units are in Minerals Per 100 m3.
Beware that some minerals are being reduced or eliminated from some ores. In particular, CCP seems to be forcing players to sink even more skill points into mining and train for Bistot and Arkonor in order to effectively mine Zydrine and Megacyte, whereas previously players could get by mining other ores like Gneiss and Spodumain for those minerals.
Note: The Chg values will appear off by a value of 1 on some rows; this is because the numbers are actually fractional but are being rounded to the nearest whole number (with the exception of Mercoxit which was rounded to 1 decimal place). The data is shown in two tables instead of one largely just to improve layout on the page.
High-Sec Minerals Per 100 m3
Null-Sec Minerals Per 100 m3
Beware that some minerals are being reduced or eliminated from some ores. In particular, CCP seems to be forcing players to sink even more skill points into mining and train for Bistot and Arkonor in order to effectively mine Zydrine and Megacyte, whereas previously players could get by mining other ores like Gneiss and Spodumain for those minerals.
Note: The Chg values will appear off by a value of 1 on some rows; this is because the numbers are actually fractional but are being rounded to the nearest whole number (with the exception of Mercoxit which was rounded to 1 decimal place). The data is shown in two tables instead of one largely just to improve layout on the page.
High-Sec Minerals Per 100 m3
| Tritanium | Pyerite | Mexallon | Isogen | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | |
| Veldspar | 4,150 | 4,150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Scordite | 2,307 | 2,307 | 1,153 | 1,153 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Pyroxeres | 1,170 | 1,170 | 83 | 83 | 167 | 167 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Plagioclase | 306 | 306 | 609 | 609 | 306 | 306 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Omber | 142 | 142 | 57 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 142 | 142 | ||||
| Kernite | 112 | 112 | 0 | 0 | 223 | 223 | 112 | 112 | ||||
| Jaspet | 36 | 0 | -36 | 61 | 0 | -61 | 72 | 175 | 103 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hemorphite | 60 | 733 | 673 | 24 | 0 | -24 | 6 | 0 | -6 | 20 | 33 | 14 |
| Hedbergite | 0 | 0 | 27 | 333 | 306 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 67 | 1 | ||
| Gneiss | 256 | 0 | -256 | 0 | 440 | 440 | 256 | 480 | 224 | 48 | 60 | 12 |
| Dark Ochre | 1,101 | 1,250 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 200 | 200 | ||
| Crokite | 1,312 | 1,313 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Spodumain | 2,451 | 3,500 | 1,049 | 311 | 753 | 442 | 0 | 131 | 131 | 0 | 28 | 28 |
| Bistot | 0 | 0 | 1,036 | 750 | -286 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Arkonor | 432 | 1,375 | 943 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 156 | 76 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mercoxit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Null-Sec Minerals Per 100 m3
| Nocxium | Zydrine | Megacyte | Morphite | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | Old | New | Chg | |
| Veldspar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Scordite | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Pyroxeres | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Plagioclase | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Omber | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Kernite | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Jaspet | 36 | 38 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Hemorphite | 39 | 40 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Hedbergite | 33 | 33 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Gneiss | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Dark Ochre | 22 | 15 | -7 | 11 | 0 | -11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Crokite | 17 | 48 | 30 | 23 | 8 | -15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Spodumain | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -5 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Bistot | 0 | 0 | 15 | 28 | 13 | 7 | 6 | -1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Arkonor | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | -7 | 14 | 20 | 6 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mercoxit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 0.2 | |||
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Freighter Escort and Bumper Clearing Service
Have a bumper pilot you want dead? Don't have the manpower to conduct a wardec? Are the bumpers hiding in npc corporations? Your search ends here. With this new business proposition you can haul your freight and sell it too.
This is a new business proposition that is not yet active. Initially, I'm looking to see how much interest there is in using and participating in this service. If you are interested in either aspect, please mail me in game. I will track interest and review player histories of interested parties.
There are two initial services that could be provided: for now, I will refer to them as freighter escort and bumper clearing.
Freighter escort would be for any freighter pilot who wants added protection for a shipment. Contracts would be arranged in private and clients would need to have a clean player history with no ties to high-sec ganking activity. Freighters would be escorted by a fleet large enough to discourange and, if necessary, violently remove bumpers who interfere with the shipment. Partial payment up front, refundable if freighter is lost to gankers.
Bumper clearing is more of a bounty program. If any bumper has been harrassing a high-sec area and you want them to pay a price for their criminal activities, you can offer a bounty to the service. Parameters of the bounty could be negotiated. A likely bounty would be one with a time limit, partial payment up front (maybe 10%), refundable if the bumper isn't brought to justice within the time limit. Once a bounty is active, the service will actively seek out the bumper and destroy his or her ship (generally limited to Machariels, ship types will be defined as part of the bounty contract). After the bumper ship is destroyed, the remainder of the bounty is to be paid.
All of this is subject to revision and dependent on player interest. Mail Scott Bacon in game with a summary of your character history and what aspect of the service you would be interested in.
This is a new business proposition that is not yet active. Initially, I'm looking to see how much interest there is in using and participating in this service. If you are interested in either aspect, please mail me in game. I will track interest and review player histories of interested parties.
There are two initial services that could be provided: for now, I will refer to them as freighter escort and bumper clearing.
Freighter Escort
Freighter escort would be for any freighter pilot who wants added protection for a shipment. Contracts would be arranged in private and clients would need to have a clean player history with no ties to high-sec ganking activity. Freighters would be escorted by a fleet large enough to discourange and, if necessary, violently remove bumpers who interfere with the shipment. Partial payment up front, refundable if freighter is lost to gankers.
Bumper Clearing
Bumper clearing is more of a bounty program. If any bumper has been harrassing a high-sec area and you want them to pay a price for their criminal activities, you can offer a bounty to the service. Parameters of the bounty could be negotiated. A likely bounty would be one with a time limit, partial payment up front (maybe 10%), refundable if the bumper isn't brought to justice within the time limit. Once a bounty is active, the service will actively seek out the bumper and destroy his or her ship (generally limited to Machariels, ship types will be defined as part of the bounty contract). After the bumper ship is destroyed, the remainder of the bounty is to be paid.
All of this is subject to revision and dependent on player interest. Mail Scott Bacon in game with a summary of your character history and what aspect of the service you would be interested in.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Ore Reprocessing Table (pre-Mosaic)
Today I bring you a table of minerals you get from the various asteroid ore. There are already a lot of tables out there that do this, but many of them don't show you the information in the most useful ways, and some of them have glaring errors (like the Evelopedia Advanced Mining page having the Zydrine and Megacyte columns backwards).
Many tables, the Evelopedia table included, show you the minerals per 100 unit of asteroid. This is nice, as it's how the game is designed, but it's not the most useful. Mining ships mine at a rate measured in m3 per unit time. Therefore, the most useful way to show the minerals acquired is to show it by the same measure, in m3 per unit time. Therefore, below I have put together a table showing units of mineral per 100 m3 of asteroid. This makes it much easier to decide what to mine based on what minerals you want or need. Displayed in this way, it becomes a straight numbers comparison.
UPDATE! CCP is changing the minerals in all the ores with the Mosaic update. These values will no longer be valid after the release of Mosaic.
Minerals Per 100 m3 (prior to Mosaic update)
Many tables, the Evelopedia table included, show you the minerals per 100 unit of asteroid. This is nice, as it's how the game is designed, but it's not the most useful. Mining ships mine at a rate measured in m3 per unit time. Therefore, the most useful way to show the minerals acquired is to show it by the same measure, in m3 per unit time. Therefore, below I have put together a table showing units of mineral per 100 m3 of asteroid. This makes it much easier to decide what to mine based on what minerals you want or need. Displayed in this way, it becomes a straight numbers comparison.
UPDATE! CCP is changing the minerals in all the ores with the Mosaic update. These values will no longer be valid after the release of Mosaic.
Minerals Per 100 m3 (prior to Mosaic update)
| Tritanium | Pyerite | Mexallon | Isogen | Nocxium | Zydrine | Megacyte | Morphite | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veldspar | 4,150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Scordite | 2,307 | 1,153 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pyroxeres | 1,170 | 83 | 167 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Plagioclase | 306 | 609 | 306 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Omber | 142 | 57 | 0 | 142 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kernite | 112 | 0 | 223 | 112 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaspet | 36 | 61 | 72 | 0 | 36 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Hemorphite | 60 | 24 | 6 | 20 | 39 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Hedbergite | 0 | 27 | 0 | 65 | 33 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Gneiss | 256 | 0 | 256 | 48 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Dark Ochre | 1,101 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Crokite | 1,312 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| Spodumain | 2,451 | 311 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Bistot | 0 | 1,036 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 7 | 0 |
| Arkonor | 432 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 14 | 0 |
| Mercoxit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Moon Mining Series: Update 2
Today I thought I would provide a little insight on shutting down a mining POS. It turns out it's a little more complicated than you might expect. First -- terminology -- I will use the term Control Tower to refer to the main tower, Facility Complexes to refer to things other than the Control Tower, like Silos, Moon Harvesting Arrays, Shield Hardeners, etc, and I will use the term POS to refer to the station in it's entirety (Control Tower + any Facility Complexes).
Having finished my initial mining experiment, I went to shut down my POS. One of the first things I did was remove all but about 12 hours worth of fuel. Why? Because fuel is valuable and it also takes up a lot of space. It needs it's own cargo trip if you have a lot of fuel left. I also offlined the Silo and Moon Harvesting Array. I removed everything from the Silo and unanchored the Silo and Moon Harvesting array. Once unanchored, I could scoop them back to the cargo bay. This was all pretty easy. Unfortunately, at this point, someone had set up a gate camp on my route and I could not proceed with the shutdown process. I decided to wait until after down time. However, for whatever reason, the server didn't come back up in the usual timely manner and I had to go to work. By the time I was online again, my Control Tower was out of fuel. Well, almost out of fuel. It was offline but still had 1 fuel block in the fuel bay. Here's where the first bit of useful info is -- it appears the fuel is removed in hourly increments. A small station uses 10 fuel blocks per hour. If you put 5 fuel blocks in it, that doesn't give it an extra half hour.
What do I care if the station is offline, right? I'm just taking it down. Well, here's the thing: You can't unanchor a tower that has other Facility Complexes anchored off of it. And I still had a couple of shield hardeners anchored off of it. And you can't unanchor the other Facility Complexes unless the tower is online. Doh!
So off I went for more fuel, just a couple of hours worth. I went back to the station, put the fuel in, and onlined it again. I could then unanchor the shield hardeners. With the other stuff unanchored, I then offlined the tower and attempted to unanchor it. But you can't unanchor it unless it is empty. I still had a bunch of Strontium Clathrates in it. They aren't of much value, but they do take up a lot of cargo space. Guess I'll just jettison it, right? Wrong again. There is no option to jettison directly from the control tower. You have to move it into a ship cargo bay first. Well, at that time, there was another gate camp blocking my route again, so I didn't have a hauler with me. I figured I would just start the unanchor and then go switch out ships (Note: this is risky, because if you unanchor and leave the tower, someone else can easily scoop it! But I was willing to risk it at the time). I didn't have cargo room to remove and jettison the Strontium Clathrates easily. Doh again!
Later I came back with a bigger hauler, pulled out the Strontium Clathrates, jettisoned them, and then I could unanchor the tower. Unanchoring the small tower takes 15 minutes. After that, I loaded up the tower and a shield hardener and was on my way. I left behind 1 unanchored shield hardener and 1 ECM battery, because frankly, they weren't worth going back for. You're welcome, whoever finds and takes them. :-)
Takeaways:
Having finished my initial mining experiment, I went to shut down my POS. One of the first things I did was remove all but about 12 hours worth of fuel. Why? Because fuel is valuable and it also takes up a lot of space. It needs it's own cargo trip if you have a lot of fuel left. I also offlined the Silo and Moon Harvesting Array. I removed everything from the Silo and unanchored the Silo and Moon Harvesting array. Once unanchored, I could scoop them back to the cargo bay. This was all pretty easy. Unfortunately, at this point, someone had set up a gate camp on my route and I could not proceed with the shutdown process. I decided to wait until after down time. However, for whatever reason, the server didn't come back up in the usual timely manner and I had to go to work. By the time I was online again, my Control Tower was out of fuel. Well, almost out of fuel. It was offline but still had 1 fuel block in the fuel bay. Here's where the first bit of useful info is -- it appears the fuel is removed in hourly increments. A small station uses 10 fuel blocks per hour. If you put 5 fuel blocks in it, that doesn't give it an extra half hour.
What do I care if the station is offline, right? I'm just taking it down. Well, here's the thing: You can't unanchor a tower that has other Facility Complexes anchored off of it. And I still had a couple of shield hardeners anchored off of it. And you can't unanchor the other Facility Complexes unless the tower is online. Doh!
So off I went for more fuel, just a couple of hours worth. I went back to the station, put the fuel in, and onlined it again. I could then unanchor the shield hardeners. With the other stuff unanchored, I then offlined the tower and attempted to unanchor it. But you can't unanchor it unless it is empty. I still had a bunch of Strontium Clathrates in it. They aren't of much value, but they do take up a lot of cargo space. Guess I'll just jettison it, right? Wrong again. There is no option to jettison directly from the control tower. You have to move it into a ship cargo bay first. Well, at that time, there was another gate camp blocking my route again, so I didn't have a hauler with me. I figured I would just start the unanchor and then go switch out ships (Note: this is risky, because if you unanchor and leave the tower, someone else can easily scoop it! But I was willing to risk it at the time). I didn't have cargo room to remove and jettison the Strontium Clathrates easily. Doh again!
Later I came back with a bigger hauler, pulled out the Strontium Clathrates, jettisoned them, and then I could unanchor the tower. Unanchoring the small tower takes 15 minutes. After that, I loaded up the tower and a shield hardener and was on my way. I left behind 1 unanchored shield hardener and 1 ECM battery, because frankly, they weren't worth going back for. You're welcome, whoever finds and takes them. :-)
Takeaways:
- Control tower fuel should be added/removed in hourly increments.
- Towers and facility complexes must be empty before they can be unanchored.
- Towers cannot be unanchored while other facility complexes are still anchored.
- Facility complexes cannot be unanchored while the tower is offline.
- If the Control Tower is already out of fuel, take some fuel with you when you head out to it -- just an hour or two worth should be enough.
- Offline and empty facility complexes.
- Unanchor facility complexes and remove them. For facility complexes outside the shield, you may want to move them inside the shield if you won't be immediately removing them from the system.
- If you have a lot of fuel left, and the tower plus fuel won't fit in your hauler, remove most but not all of the fuel first.
- Offline the Control Tower. Remove the remaining fuel and Strontium Clathrates. Just jettison them from your ship cargo bay after taking them out of the Control Tower if you don't care to keep them.
- Unanchor and remove the Control Tower.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Moon Mining Series: Update 1
A few weeks ago I made a post and provided links to a Clandestine Moon Mining guide. As I continue forward with my own moon mining experiment, I will post periodic updates with things I've learned; things that either aren't covered in the common guides and things that have changed since some guides were written (the one I linked to is good, but rather old). This will be the first update in the series.
Included in today's update:
First, a note about SOV null space versus NPC null space. You may already be aware of this. But for those of you that aren't, it's very important. SOV null space is null space where corporations and alliances can claim sovereignty. That includes most of null space, but not all of it. You do not want to mine in SOV null space! All of SOV null space has been claimed (or at least, very close to all of it). More importantly, sovereignty holders are sent a notification if a control tower is erected in their space! This makes setting up in SOV held space very much not clandestine, and it's likely the SOV holders will quickly show up to destroy your tower.
So if you can't set up in SOV null space, where do you go? NPC null space. NPC null space is space that sovereignty cannot be claimed on. Usually because it's considered as held by one of the NPC factions. If you look at some of the Eve sovereignty maps, you can spot most of the NPC null space areas as they are out in the null space perimeter of the galaxy and don't show any sovereignty. However, some of them neighbor low and high sec, so it's not entirely obvious. Some example regions include Syndicate, Outer Ring, and Great Wildlands.
As you are investigating moons, you need to be aware that each moon can only have one control tower. So if someone else already has a control tower there, even if they aren't taking advantage of the moon materials you are after, you cannot set up shop next to them on the same moon.
As you are considering moons, note that abundance values greater that 1 have no significance currently. If a moon has Atmospheric Gases with an abundance of 2, that does not mean you can have 2 Moon Harvesting Arrays mining Atmospheric Gases. You can still only have 1, and you will still only get 100 units per hour. For moons that have more than 1 different kind of resource, you can set up multiple Moon Harvesting Arrays. However, to run multiple Moon Harvesting Arrays, you will likely need a medium sized control tower instead of a small, likely offsetting any advantage to mining multiple resources. One of the reasons for this, and another important note, is that you need a separate Silo for every Moon Harvesting Array. Both Silos and Moon Harvesting Arrays have high CPU requirements (what the heck is that silo using all that CPU for??), and you can't fit 2 Moon Harvesting Arrays and 2 Silos on a small tower.
Don't bother spending a lot of time fine tuning where you plop down your control tower. It doesn't matter. You have to be within 100 km of the warp in point to anchor it, and when you do anchor it, it will get moved to a standard location. Remember, there can only be 1 control tower per moon, and it just so happens there is a fixed location for it. Once you start anchoring it, it will likely reappear a good 100 km from where you are, and you'll have to fly over to it to continue with onlining it.
A quick note about anchoring, as some older guides have outdated information. A small station takes 7.5 minutes to anchor, and another 7.5 minutes to online. This is consistent with what old guides will tell you. However, of all the structure types I've checked, including the Moon Harvesting Array, Silo, and Shield Hardeners, the anchor time is actually very short, usually just 5 seconds. Once the tower is up, is very quick to set up other structures.
It should be noted that travel dangers can more than offset any profits if you start losing transport ships. Low and null space is dangerous. Some folks will say things like "null is safer than high security space". That's simply untrue. I know from experience that low security space and null space can in fact be much more dangerous. In high security, you are usually safe unless you have kill rights on you or run into CODE gankers with a poorly fit ship at a bad time. However, in low and null space, pretty much everyone you see is out to kill you. It's extremely annoying if you are just trying to go about your own business.
For ships, you pretty much always want to be in either a covert ops cloaking ship or an Interceptor with an align time of under 2 seconds. The biggest dangers come from gate camps.
In low security, you can generally breeze through by activating cloak immediately after engaging warp or leaving gate cloak. But you need to be good at it. Many folks out there have ships with very quick targeting times, and if you are too slow engaging cloak, they can get you. At the same time, if you are too fast engaging cloak, sometimes the cloak will fail to activate (claiming you are still under gate cloak) and you will have to try to activate it again, possibly causing a delay in cloaking that gets you killed. In an interceptor with an align time of under 2 seconds, it shouldn't matter. Attackers shouldn't be able to lock you before you get into warp.
In null security, things become more complicated due to the use of warp disruption bubbles. You can use strategic bookmarks to help, but if you jump into a gate camp with a bubble right on the gate, you might be screwed. I don't have a good suggestion for handling this situation in a covert ops cloaking ship. You can either try to burn back to the gate or try to get outside the warp bubbles. You can leave gate cloak, immediately activate your cloak, and also activate your MWD to get one burst of speed, all the while trying to avoid getting decloaked by whatever they are trying to decloak you with. Any way you look at it, it's not a safe procedure. On the bright side, the Interceptor should work just as easily in null space as it does in low space, as they have warp bubble immunity. So you can scout your route ahead with an Interceptor first before taking your covert ops hauler through. However, it comes at the expense of added time to scout your route in advance and it isn't guaranteed to always work as someone could set up after you scout but before you take your hauler through.
Included in today's update:
- SOV null vs NPC null
- Mining limitations
- Station location
- Anchoring notes
- The dangers of travel
SOV Null vs NPC Null
First, a note about SOV null space versus NPC null space. You may already be aware of this. But for those of you that aren't, it's very important. SOV null space is null space where corporations and alliances can claim sovereignty. That includes most of null space, but not all of it. You do not want to mine in SOV null space! All of SOV null space has been claimed (or at least, very close to all of it). More importantly, sovereignty holders are sent a notification if a control tower is erected in their space! This makes setting up in SOV held space very much not clandestine, and it's likely the SOV holders will quickly show up to destroy your tower.
So if you can't set up in SOV null space, where do you go? NPC null space. NPC null space is space that sovereignty cannot be claimed on. Usually because it's considered as held by one of the NPC factions. If you look at some of the Eve sovereignty maps, you can spot most of the NPC null space areas as they are out in the null space perimeter of the galaxy and don't show any sovereignty. However, some of them neighbor low and high sec, so it's not entirely obvious. Some example regions include Syndicate, Outer Ring, and Great Wildlands.
Mining Limitations
As you are investigating moons, you need to be aware that each moon can only have one control tower. So if someone else already has a control tower there, even if they aren't taking advantage of the moon materials you are after, you cannot set up shop next to them on the same moon.
As you are considering moons, note that abundance values greater that 1 have no significance currently. If a moon has Atmospheric Gases with an abundance of 2, that does not mean you can have 2 Moon Harvesting Arrays mining Atmospheric Gases. You can still only have 1, and you will still only get 100 units per hour. For moons that have more than 1 different kind of resource, you can set up multiple Moon Harvesting Arrays. However, to run multiple Moon Harvesting Arrays, you will likely need a medium sized control tower instead of a small, likely offsetting any advantage to mining multiple resources. One of the reasons for this, and another important note, is that you need a separate Silo for every Moon Harvesting Array. Both Silos and Moon Harvesting Arrays have high CPU requirements (what the heck is that silo using all that CPU for??), and you can't fit 2 Moon Harvesting Arrays and 2 Silos on a small tower.
Station Location
Don't bother spending a lot of time fine tuning where you plop down your control tower. It doesn't matter. You have to be within 100 km of the warp in point to anchor it, and when you do anchor it, it will get moved to a standard location. Remember, there can only be 1 control tower per moon, and it just so happens there is a fixed location for it. Once you start anchoring it, it will likely reappear a good 100 km from where you are, and you'll have to fly over to it to continue with onlining it.
Anchoring Notes
A quick note about anchoring, as some older guides have outdated information. A small station takes 7.5 minutes to anchor, and another 7.5 minutes to online. This is consistent with what old guides will tell you. However, of all the structure types I've checked, including the Moon Harvesting Array, Silo, and Shield Hardeners, the anchor time is actually very short, usually just 5 seconds. Once the tower is up, is very quick to set up other structures.
Dangers of Travel
It should be noted that travel dangers can more than offset any profits if you start losing transport ships. Low and null space is dangerous. Some folks will say things like "null is safer than high security space". That's simply untrue. I know from experience that low security space and null space can in fact be much more dangerous. In high security, you are usually safe unless you have kill rights on you or run into CODE gankers with a poorly fit ship at a bad time. However, in low and null space, pretty much everyone you see is out to kill you. It's extremely annoying if you are just trying to go about your own business.
For ships, you pretty much always want to be in either a covert ops cloaking ship or an Interceptor with an align time of under 2 seconds. The biggest dangers come from gate camps.
In low security, you can generally breeze through by activating cloak immediately after engaging warp or leaving gate cloak. But you need to be good at it. Many folks out there have ships with very quick targeting times, and if you are too slow engaging cloak, they can get you. At the same time, if you are too fast engaging cloak, sometimes the cloak will fail to activate (claiming you are still under gate cloak) and you will have to try to activate it again, possibly causing a delay in cloaking that gets you killed. In an interceptor with an align time of under 2 seconds, it shouldn't matter. Attackers shouldn't be able to lock you before you get into warp.
In null security, things become more complicated due to the use of warp disruption bubbles. You can use strategic bookmarks to help, but if you jump into a gate camp with a bubble right on the gate, you might be screwed. I don't have a good suggestion for handling this situation in a covert ops cloaking ship. You can either try to burn back to the gate or try to get outside the warp bubbles. You can leave gate cloak, immediately activate your cloak, and also activate your MWD to get one burst of speed, all the while trying to avoid getting decloaked by whatever they are trying to decloak you with. Any way you look at it, it's not a safe procedure. On the bright side, the Interceptor should work just as easily in null space as it does in low space, as they have warp bubble immunity. So you can scout your route ahead with an Interceptor first before taking your covert ops hauler through. However, it comes at the expense of added time to scout your route in advance and it isn't guaranteed to always work as someone could set up after you scout but before you take your hauler through.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Remote Repair Options: What Is The Burst Osprey?
First, what you probably already know, but I will include it here for completeness. A typical fleet repair ship, often called a "logi" in Eve, would normally be close to cap stable to be able to provide sustained repairs to the fleet. But when it comes to Anti-ganking, combat events come in intense 20 second events that occur typically 15 or more minutes apart. To combat this with a logi, sustained repairs are not needed. Only 20 to 25 seconds worth of repairs are needed, and if you stay at range, you don't really need any extra tank either. This allows the logi pilot the option of increasing their repair amount at the expense of tank and/or cap stability. Such a ship -- a common one being the Osprey -- will be able to provide a brief "burst" of repairs. Thus the name "Burst Osprey". Below we will look at some burst repair options, and how the compare to more "normal" fits.
To keep things simple further down, lets look at what the hit points repaired per second is for the various equipment and ship bonuses, and use that in our tables. We will keep things limited to characters with all skills level 5 initially for a reference comparison. Pilots with lower skills can use this as a base and adjust the fits down as needed to work for their skill set.
Overloaded numbers shown in parenthesis. All values take character skills into account.
| Equipment | Duration (seconds) | Base Repair Amount | Base Repair / sec | Possible Ship Bonus | Bonused Repair Amount | Bonused Repair / sec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medium 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairer | 5.0 (4.25) | 192.0 | 38.4 (45.2) | 12.5%/Level | 312.0 | 62.4 (73.4) |
| Medium Remote Armor Repairer II | 4.5 (3.825) | 192.0 | 42.7 (50.2) | 12.5%/Level | 312.0 | 69.3 (81.6) |
| Medium S95a Remote Shield Booster | 5.0 (4.25) | 192.0 | 38.4 (45.2) | 12.5%/Level | 312.0 | 62.4 (73.4) |
| Medium Remote Shield Booster II | 4.5 (3.825) | 192.0 | 42.7 (50.2) | 12.5%/Level | 312.0 | 69.3 (81.6) |
| Large 'Solace' Remote Armor Reparier | 5.0 (4.25) | 384.0 | 76.8 (90.3) | 12.5%/Level | 624.0 | 124.8 (146.8) |
| Large Remote Armor Repairer II | 4.5 (3.825) | 384.0 | 85.3 (100.4) | 12.5%/Level | 624.0 | 138.7 (163.1) |
| Large S95a Remote Shield Booster | 5.0 (4.25) | 384.0 | 76.8 (90.3) | 12.5%/Level | 624.0 | 124.8 (146.8) |
| Large Remote Shield Booster II | 4.5 (3.825) | 384.0 | 85.3 (100.4) | 12.5%/Level | 624.0 | 138.7 (163.1) |
| Light Armor Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 15.0 | 3.0 | 100% Transfer | 30.0 | 6.0 |
| Light Armor Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 17.5 | 3.5 | 100% Transfer | 35.0 | 7.0 |
| Light Shield Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 15.0 | 3.0 | 100% Transfer | 30.0 | 6.0 |
| Light Shield Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 18.0 | 3.6 | 100% Transfer | 36.0 | 7.2 |
| Medium Armor Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 30.0 | 6.0 | 100% Transfer | 60.0 | 12.0 |
| Medium Armor Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 35.0 | 7.0 | 100% Transfer | 70.0 | 14.0 |
| Medium Shield Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 30.0 | 6.0 | 100% Transfer | 60.0 | 12.0 |
| Medium Shield Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 36.0 | 7.2 | 100% Transfer | 72.0 | 14.4 |
| Heavy Armor Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 75.0 | 15.0 | 100% Transfer | 150.0 | 30.0 |
| Heavy Armor Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 90.0 | 18.0 | 100% Transfer | 180.0 | 36.0 |
| Heavy Shield Maintenance Bot I | 5.0 | 75.0 | 15.0 | 100% Transfer | 150.0 | 30.0 |
| Heavy Shield Maintenance Bot II | 5.0 | 90.0 | 18.0 | 100% Transfer | 180.0 | 36.0 |
Now lets consider the following fits:
| Ship | Fitting | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Cap Trans Osprey | 3 Medium Repairers, 4 Light Drones | Infinitely sustained repairs |
| Solo Osprey | 5 Medium Repairers, 4 Light Drones | Medium duration repairs |
| Burst Osprey | 4 Large Repairers, 1 Medium Repairer, 4 Light Drones | Short duration burst repairs |
| Cap Trans Basilisk | 4 Large Repairers, 5 Light Drones | Infinitely sustained repairs |
| Solo Basilisk | 6 Large Repairers, 5 Light Drones | Medium duration repairs |
| Solo Exequror | 3 Medium Repairers, 5 Medium Drones | Medium duration repairs |
| Burst Exequror | 2 Large Repairers, 1 Medium Repairer, 5 Medium Drones | Short duration burst repairs |
| Oneiros | 4 Large Repairers, 5 Medium Drones | Medium duration repairs |
| Armor Repair Armageddon | 7 Large Repairers, 5 Heavy Drones | Short duration, short range burst repairs; a rather goofy fit I've been playing around with |
Now lets look at the repair potential of each of those fits:
| Remote Repairers | Repair Drones | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ship | Lrg T2 | Lrg M4 | Med T2 | Med M4 | HP/sec | Light | Medium | Heavy | HP/sec | Total HP/sec |
| Cap Trans Osprey | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 207.9 (244.8) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 28.8 | 236.7 (273.6) |
| Solo Osprey | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 346.5 (408.0) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 28.8 | 375.3 (436.8) |
| Burst Osprey | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 568.5 (668.8) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 28.8 | 597.3 (697.6) |
| Cap Trans Basilisk | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 341.2 (401.6) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.0 | 377.2 (437.6) |
| Solo Basilisk | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 511.8 (602.4) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.0 | 547.8 (638.4) |
| Solo Exequror | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 207.9 (244.8) | 0 | 5 | 0 | 70 | 277.9 (314.8) |
| Burst Exequror | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 318.9 (375.2) | 0 | 5 | 0 | 70 | 388.9 (445.2) |
| Oneiros | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 341.2 (401.6) | 0 | 5 | 0 | 70 | 411.2 (471.6) |
| Armor Repair Armageddon | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 597.1 (702.8) | 0 | 0 | 5 | 90 | 687.1 (792.8) |
Looking at the table above, you can see that the Burst Osprey actually has a better repair rate than a max repair fit Basilisk! Of course, the Burst Osprey capacitor will run out in a matter of seconds, so make sure whatever burst repair fit you use will last the 20 to 25 seconds needed to counter a high-security gank attempt. The only thing with a better repair rate is the rather awkward Armor Repair Armageddon, but it comes with some serious down sides like very short repair range, slow speed, and the need for some serious tank.
I did leave out consideration of rigs. But the only rig that makes a difference in repair rate is the Drone Repair Augmentor. It can't be used on most of the Burst fits because the Burst fits typically need engineering rigs to boost power grid and CPU. But it can be used on the other fits. However, the drone repair amount is not that much, and the bonus is only 10% for the T1 rig. The boost you would end up getting from using one would probably only be on the order of an additional 10 hp/s.
If you have looked at the Burst Osprey fit information in the Anti-ganking MOTD or on Astral Services, you may notice the claim that the Burst Osprey can rep up to 902 hp/sec. I believe the reason for the descrepancy between that value and what I have calculated here is that the 902 hp/sec is using an EHP value, where my values are not taking EHP into consideration. Also, I did not give any consideration to bonuses from warfare links, which could also play a part.
From running all the numbers, it looks like shield repair might be the better way to go. However, I left out the Augoror, the Scythe, and their T2 counterparts, which is making the results look biased. For Anti-gank purposes, the Scythe would end up looking a lot like the Exequror but for shields, and the Augoror would end up looking a lot like the Osprey but for armor. So shields vs armor repair may actually end up being close to even. The real takeaway should probably be that, for AG purposes, the better drones on the Exequror are not offsetting the loss from having fewer high slots to fit remote repairers in. However, in favor of shield repair, shield repairs can take effect almost immediately, whereas armor repair won't help until the target shields are down. Regardless of what you go with, should a gank fail and the target not be able to escape, remember that you still need some people who can do every kind of repairs -- shield, armor, and hull -- to fully repair the target.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Pilgrimage to B-R5RB: Graveyard of Titans
The trip there is not without peril. The closest high security space is about 15 jumps away, and you may encounter gate camps on your way there. Be careful with what ship you choose to fly there, use a clone with no expensive implants, and whatever you fly, bring a cloaking device. If not on the way, you will want to cloak once there to take a look at the site in relative safety.
I considered flying a Covert Ops ship, but ultimately decided to go with an Interceptor for it's immunity to warp bubbles and high speed. Still, my first attempt to visit the monument ended with a ship wreck of my own. Even with an Interceptor fitted with 2 Nanofiber Internal Structures, a Test Alliance gate camp was able to lock, warp disrupt, and kill me on my way. I changed up my fit, adding two warp core stabilizers, necessarily dropping one of the two Nanos but keeping the other, and intentionally hit the same gate again to test if my revised fit could break through the gate camp. However, when I got there again the gate camp had diminished quite a bit, and I passed through with ease, not really giving the new fit a solid test. (Update -- based on the helpful comments, an effective strategy for getting past even the best of gate camps is ensuring you have an align time under 2 seconds; based on EFT, I could have done this in my Malediction by utilizing 3 Inertia Stabilizers II modules) A passed a few other ships along the way, but made it safely to the monument and fulfilled my desire to experience this piece of Eve history. I can't say if others will find a trip here worthwhile or not, but I'm glad I took a night to go check it out.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Clandestine Moon Mining
I've started taking a look at what it takes to build T2 equipment, all the way back to the raw source materials. Most of those raw materials come from moon mining. I'll be dipping my toes into these waters in the weeks ahead, and will report on my experience over time. In the meantime, I ran across what looks to be a nice informational guide from TenTonHammer on moon mining without an Alliance to back you up, and thought I would share here.
Clandestine Moon Mining (Part 1)
Clandestine Moon Mining (Part 2)
Good luck if you try your hand at this. It looks risky but it could be good fun for the right Industrialists.
Clandestine Moon Mining (Part 1)
Clandestine Moon Mining (Part 2)
Good luck if you try your hand at this. It looks risky but it could be good fun for the right Industrialists.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Managing Kill Rights
Those of us in the AG Community who partake in special operations will sometimes get kill rights against us. For example, gankers typically use a large fast ship like a Machariel to bump their victims to keep them from escaping before a gank. One special op some of us undertake is to gank these ganker operated Machariels. It is a big financial loss for the ganker and potentially lets a victim escape. However, it also results in the special ops team getting a kill right against them. This blog post focuses on thinking about how to manage these kill rights.
The easiest way to get rid of a ganker kill right against you is to have a friend remove it. Of course, you can only do this for kill rights made available to the public, but that is often what happens with kill rights. Get a cheap ship, go somewhere private with your friend, and have your friend obtain the kill right and destroy your cheap ship. Kill right removed.
There may be a price for the kill right. So you might want to give your friend the ISK for buying the kill right up front. If the price is cheap, it's no big deal. But if the price is high, you may want to deal with the kill right in some other way because otherwise it costs you money, and worse, that money goes to the ganker.
If you have a public kill right that is of price high enough you don't want to pay it, you can optionally try to get a neutral party to destroy a cheap ship to remove it. Money still goes to the ganker, which is bad, but at least that money isn't coming from you or an ally. Get a somewhat cheap ship -- you'll probably have to pick something more significant than a rookie ship, maybe like a cruiser -- and go hang out at the trade hubs. Chances are, someone will buy the kill right and kill you. You'll probably lose your pod too if you aren't super fast, so make sure you are in a clone with few or no implants.
Use an alt to perform your Anti-Gank ganking activities. Then your main never has a kill right for this. I like this approach, but it does take time to train up an alt, and it means some of your elite AG activity won't be associated with your main. Still, it's a good approach. Now you can do your non-AG activities on your main without worrying about kill rights.
Kill rights, as far as I understand them, are gone in 30 days. Wait 30 days offline, or only fly cheap ships for 30 days, and you minimize your risk. Not a great approach, but I thought I would list it, as it is an option.
Last but not least, you can just try not to get into a situation where someone will buy and activate your kill right. With a kill right on you, act like you are in low or null security space. Use insta-docks and insta-undocks, avoid busy areas, try not to be seen by others. Use special ops cloak or the cloak+MWD trick when traveling through gates with a lot of activity.
Feel free to share your thoughts or ideas on this. But most importantly, think about how to manage kill rights against you.
Fly safe!
Kill Right Removal By Ally
The easiest way to get rid of a ganker kill right against you is to have a friend remove it. Of course, you can only do this for kill rights made available to the public, but that is often what happens with kill rights. Get a cheap ship, go somewhere private with your friend, and have your friend obtain the kill right and destroy your cheap ship. Kill right removed.
There may be a price for the kill right. So you might want to give your friend the ISK for buying the kill right up front. If the price is cheap, it's no big deal. But if the price is high, you may want to deal with the kill right in some other way because otherwise it costs you money, and worse, that money goes to the ganker.
Kill Right Removal By Neutral
If you have a public kill right that is of price high enough you don't want to pay it, you can optionally try to get a neutral party to destroy a cheap ship to remove it. Money still goes to the ganker, which is bad, but at least that money isn't coming from you or an ally. Get a somewhat cheap ship -- you'll probably have to pick something more significant than a rookie ship, maybe like a cruiser -- and go hang out at the trade hubs. Chances are, someone will buy the kill right and kill you. You'll probably lose your pod too if you aren't super fast, so make sure you are in a clone with few or no implants.
Kill Right Avoidance By Alt
Use an alt to perform your Anti-Gank ganking activities. Then your main never has a kill right for this. I like this approach, but it does take time to train up an alt, and it means some of your elite AG activity won't be associated with your main. Still, it's a good approach. Now you can do your non-AG activities on your main without worrying about kill rights.
Kill Right Avoidance By Time
Kill rights, as far as I understand them, are gone in 30 days. Wait 30 days offline, or only fly cheap ships for 30 days, and you minimize your risk. Not a great approach, but I thought I would list it, as it is an option.
Kill Right Avoidance By Tactics
Last but not least, you can just try not to get into a situation where someone will buy and activate your kill right. With a kill right on you, act like you are in low or null security space. Use insta-docks and insta-undocks, avoid busy areas, try not to be seen by others. Use special ops cloak or the cloak+MWD trick when traveling through gates with a lot of activity.
Other Ideas?
Feel free to share your thoughts or ideas on this. But most importantly, think about how to manage kill rights against you.
Fly safe!
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Burner Mission Review (Mostly Negative)
Before I begin this review, let me me reiterate that I am not a long term veteran of Eve (though I'm not brand new either). I have been playing Eve for about 5 months now, and have about 10 million skill points. Could another hundred million skill points or so have made a difference? I have to think maybe so, because I don't otherwise see why anyone would find a burner mission entertaining. It was literally the least fun I've had in Eve since I began playing. I would have ended the evening feeling more satisfied if I had just spent it mining Veldspar.
A word of warning before you read on. This post is a total rant. So take it with a grain of salt. This post is about a bad experience with a burner mission, but there may be other burner missions out there that I might actually like. That said, let me continue with my rant.
The burner mission I tried was named Anomic Team, and it was located in Sibe. It consisted of 3 enemy frigates, 2 of which were supposedly logi for the 3rd, not that they were needed. I spent most of my evening setting up for this mission, and made 2 attempts at it. I never got a single shot off at any enemy. Both times, they were able to destroy or nearly destroy my frigate before I could lock a target and begin firing. It was that fast. Probably no more than 10 seconds per attempt, if that.
Let me go over what some of the problems were.
I can only guess that the only valid approach to this mission is long range kiting. I just don't see how any frigate can engage the opponents of the mission unless the opponents simply can't fire upon you.
I first attempted to use a tracking disruptor, but the opponents also had missiles (something the mission description didn't mention), so I'm not sure if it would have helped much. On the first attempt I had 2 warp core stabs equipped (the burners use scrams) just so I could test the waters and run for a refit if I didn't like how things were going. Of course, stabs mean I had very short targeting range. The opponents were initially about 40km away. I activated my ASB as soon as I started taking fire, but the time I was in targeting range I was already almost dead. I warped away with maybe 10% structure left.
The second attempt I knew I probably needed to keep some distance. I swapped out the stabs for something more combat oriented. I warped in, but to my displeasure, I found the opponents were sitting right on top of the warp in location. I immediately tried to gain some distance but was webbed and scrammed within a couple of seconds, and my ship was destroyed a few seconds after that.
Now, I'm not opposed to having to retry a difficult mission a few times to get it right. But this mission appeared to be intentionally set up to where trying again wasn't reasonably feasible. It was located a long 7 jumps from the mission hub and set in a system where no merchant activity takes place. Even trying to buy something simple like a microwarp drive required traveling 4 jumps. The one station in the system didn't even have repair ability. I literally spent the whole night on just 2 attempts of the mission. Hours of set up and refit for a combined action time of about 20 seconds.
I've heard the new burner missions are receiving good reviews, but I just don't understand why. Here are the ways I could see the missions having value:
A word of warning before you read on. This post is a total rant. So take it with a grain of salt. This post is about a bad experience with a burner mission, but there may be other burner missions out there that I might actually like. That said, let me continue with my rant.
The burner mission I tried was named Anomic Team, and it was located in Sibe. It consisted of 3 enemy frigates, 2 of which were supposedly logi for the 3rd, not that they were needed. I spent most of my evening setting up for this mission, and made 2 attempts at it. I never got a single shot off at any enemy. Both times, they were able to destroy or nearly destroy my frigate before I could lock a target and begin firing. It was that fast. Probably no more than 10 seconds per attempt, if that.
Let me go over what some of the problems were.
I can only guess that the only valid approach to this mission is long range kiting. I just don't see how any frigate can engage the opponents of the mission unless the opponents simply can't fire upon you.
I first attempted to use a tracking disruptor, but the opponents also had missiles (something the mission description didn't mention), so I'm not sure if it would have helped much. On the first attempt I had 2 warp core stabs equipped (the burners use scrams) just so I could test the waters and run for a refit if I didn't like how things were going. Of course, stabs mean I had very short targeting range. The opponents were initially about 40km away. I activated my ASB as soon as I started taking fire, but the time I was in targeting range I was already almost dead. I warped away with maybe 10% structure left.
The second attempt I knew I probably needed to keep some distance. I swapped out the stabs for something more combat oriented. I warped in, but to my displeasure, I found the opponents were sitting right on top of the warp in location. I immediately tried to gain some distance but was webbed and scrammed within a couple of seconds, and my ship was destroyed a few seconds after that.
Now, I'm not opposed to having to retry a difficult mission a few times to get it right. But this mission appeared to be intentionally set up to where trying again wasn't reasonably feasible. It was located a long 7 jumps from the mission hub and set in a system where no merchant activity takes place. Even trying to buy something simple like a microwarp drive required traveling 4 jumps. The one station in the system didn't even have repair ability. I literally spent the whole night on just 2 attempts of the mission. Hours of set up and refit for a combined action time of about 20 seconds.
I've heard the new burner missions are receiving good reviews, but I just don't understand why. Here are the ways I could see the missions having value:
- Was it fun? No, it wasn't. If I wanted to get my ass kicked, there are other much quicker ways of doing it.
- Did I profit from it? No.
- Did I learn from it? Not really. The battle was so quick, how much could I learn? I think I learned that the right approach for the mission is to stay the hell away from the opponent and fire from a distance. If that is wrong, then I didn't learn anything. If that is right, then it's no different than the best strategy for every other mission in the game; stay the hell away and fire from a distance.
- Can it hone my combat ability? This is where the mission really fails. If this mission had been set in a place where it would be easy to refit and retry multiple times, it could have been useful. But it appeared to be set up the exact opposite such that setting up for another go would require a huge time penalty.
Friday, September 26, 2014
T2 Cruise Missiles -- Well, Okay, Maybe More Rigors
Today I want to do a review of the 3rd and most complex component of the equation that determines how much missile damage is applied, and what it means for T2 cruise missiles.
The damage modification is uses the lesser of the value 1, the target signature radius divided by the missile explosion radius, or another more complex equation that takes target velocity into account. The goal is to get each part of the equation up to a value of 1 or more to apply full damage. In my prior T2 cruise missile post, I looked specifically at the 2nd part of the question, to determine how we make sure full damage can be applied. But this is only guaranteed for targets standing still. For the full damage to actually be applied, we need to make sure the 3rd part of the equation approaches 1 as well, and it turns out this is pretty significant when it comes to T2 cruise missiles.
I am going to keep this simple, and ignore the parts that we don't really care much about. The 3rd part of the equation has an exponent that involves the natural log and some mysterious damage factor, but we can actually ignore this for what we are doing. When we approach 1, the exponent will have no effect. And even when under 1, the effect is less with cruise missiles than it is with other types of missiles. So lets just keep it simple and ignore it. (If you want to see the gory equation specifics, check it out on Eve University)
What we are left with is S / E * X / V, which we want to raise to the value of 1. S is sig radius of target, E is explosion radius of missile, X is explosion velocity of missile, and V is velocity of target. Now S / E was the equation from the prior blog post. We have already looked at what we need to do to make sure this is 1. Looking at the stats for Fury Cruise Missiles, we find that the explosion velocity X is 58. This means as soon as the target exceeds a speed of 58 m/s, the damage applied starts to drop! And it can drop a lot, when explosion velocity is only 58.
How do we fix this? Our options are:
The damage modification is uses the lesser of the value 1, the target signature radius divided by the missile explosion radius, or another more complex equation that takes target velocity into account. The goal is to get each part of the equation up to a value of 1 or more to apply full damage. In my prior T2 cruise missile post, I looked specifically at the 2nd part of the question, to determine how we make sure full damage can be applied. But this is only guaranteed for targets standing still. For the full damage to actually be applied, we need to make sure the 3rd part of the equation approaches 1 as well, and it turns out this is pretty significant when it comes to T2 cruise missiles.
I am going to keep this simple, and ignore the parts that we don't really care much about. The 3rd part of the equation has an exponent that involves the natural log and some mysterious damage factor, but we can actually ignore this for what we are doing. When we approach 1, the exponent will have no effect. And even when under 1, the effect is less with cruise missiles than it is with other types of missiles. So lets just keep it simple and ignore it. (If you want to see the gory equation specifics, check it out on Eve University)
What we are left with is S / E * X / V, which we want to raise to the value of 1. S is sig radius of target, E is explosion radius of missile, X is explosion velocity of missile, and V is velocity of target. Now S / E was the equation from the prior blog post. We have already looked at what we need to do to make sure this is 1. Looking at the stats for Fury Cruise Missiles, we find that the explosion velocity X is 58. This means as soon as the target exceeds a speed of 58 m/s, the damage applied starts to drop! And it can drop a lot, when explosion velocity is only 58.
How do we fix this? Our options are:
- Slow the target down. Webs. But you have to be pretty close for webs, so this is out.
- Increase the explosion velocity. This can be done, but how much effect will it have? There is the Target Navigation Prediction skill, and probably some modules that can help. But will it be enough?
- Compensate for X / V being less than 1 by making S / E more than 1. Ah ha! Other writings don't always make this clear, but this is why you might go overboard with increasing signature radius of the target and decreasing explosion radius of the missiles -- not because of the 2nd part of the equation, but rather because of the 3rd -- to compensate for explosion velocity being less than the target's speed.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
T2 Cruise Missiles -- Do I Need Multiple T2 Rigors?
I've been wanting to increase my DPS on L4 security missions. I currently use an Armageddon outfitted with cruise missiles and sentry drones. On a typical L4 mission, I have my sentry drones take out the smaller stuff while I keep the cruise missiles targeted almost exclusively on battleships. Usually, my cruise missiles are still pecking away at the battleships after my sentries have cleared the field of everything else. And on occasion, I have to either skip a battleship or switch my sentries to the same battleship my cruise missiles are firing upon before the smaller stuff is cleared, as I occasionally run into NPC battleships that can restore armor or shields as fast as I can apply damage with the cruise missiles.
I need to keep the cruise missiles focused on larger targets to ensure they can apply their max damage due to how missile damage is applied. To apply max damage with a missile, the explosion radius for that missile needs to be less than or equal to the signature radius of the target. I could work on increasing drone damage further, but then what do I do with my cruise missiles that can barely break some NPC battleship tanks? I could focus cruise missiles on mid size ships leaving only battleships at the end, and then focus fire of the drones and missiles together on all the battleships. But what I really want is more cruise missile DPS to take down those battleships better.
There are skills I can train higher to improve missile damage further. That's part of the plan, but I also want to consider T2 launchers and missiles. T2 cruise missiles come in two flavors -- precision and fury. Precision are for small targets and fury are for large targets. Given my situation, I'm not terribly interested in the precision missiles, but I'm very interested in the fury missiles to take down those battleships. So I will stay focused on that for now.
The main issue with a T2 fury cruise missile is that it has a huge explosion radius of 567 m. Since I want to increase my missile DPS as much as possible, I need to make sure that max damage will be applied against NPC battleships. To do this, I need to make sure the explosion radius is less than or equal to the NPC signature radius. Now, I've read some threads that talk about going to what I would consider extreme measures to do this, but I don't think that's the right approach. If you overdo it, you may be using modules far more expensive than they need to be or unnecessarily using fitting slots that could have been used for something else. We need to look at precisely what is needed for the situation without going much further.
I researched a number of NPC battleships, and the low end of NPC battleship signature radius appears to be about 340 m. So my target is to either raise that signature radius and/or lower the explosion radius until they are close to equal. Do I really need 2 T2 Rigor rigs and 1 T1 Rigor rig to do this, as was suggested in one thread I read? I don't think so. Lets look at the ways we can change either the signature radius or the explosion radius:
With target painters out of my plan, that means I need to reduce the explosion radius by about 40%. That's (567 - 340) / 567. To keep things reasonable, I'm not going to suggest pushing Guided Missile Precision to 5, but we do have a ways to go, so lets say push it to 4. That's a 20% reduction. A single T1 Rigor rig is an easy fit. That's another 15%. If they add directly, we are already at 35%, or roughly 32% if they stack more like resists. That's already enough for a large number of NPC battleships. If we want to push it down all the way to the target 40% reduction, which may not even be worthwhile, we can either switch out the T1 rig for a T2 rig, train the skill up to 5, or maybe use 2 T1 rigs and not worry about training the skill up past 3.
The whole point of this exercise is this -- if you want to really optimize your fit, consider your needs carefully, and if needed, do the math to figure it out. Do I need 2 T2 Rigors, maybe also a T1 Rigor, and maxed GMP skill? No! As I determined above, that is major overkill considering I only want to use T2 cruise missiles against the battleships. I can get by just fine with a single Rigor rig and GMP skill at 4.
I need to keep the cruise missiles focused on larger targets to ensure they can apply their max damage due to how missile damage is applied. To apply max damage with a missile, the explosion radius for that missile needs to be less than or equal to the signature radius of the target. I could work on increasing drone damage further, but then what do I do with my cruise missiles that can barely break some NPC battleship tanks? I could focus cruise missiles on mid size ships leaving only battleships at the end, and then focus fire of the drones and missiles together on all the battleships. But what I really want is more cruise missile DPS to take down those battleships better.
There are skills I can train higher to improve missile damage further. That's part of the plan, but I also want to consider T2 launchers and missiles. T2 cruise missiles come in two flavors -- precision and fury. Precision are for small targets and fury are for large targets. Given my situation, I'm not terribly interested in the precision missiles, but I'm very interested in the fury missiles to take down those battleships. So I will stay focused on that for now.
The main issue with a T2 fury cruise missile is that it has a huge explosion radius of 567 m. Since I want to increase my missile DPS as much as possible, I need to make sure that max damage will be applied against NPC battleships. To do this, I need to make sure the explosion radius is less than or equal to the NPC signature radius. Now, I've read some threads that talk about going to what I would consider extreme measures to do this, but I don't think that's the right approach. If you overdo it, you may be using modules far more expensive than they need to be or unnecessarily using fitting slots that could have been used for something else. We need to look at precisely what is needed for the situation without going much further.
I researched a number of NPC battleships, and the low end of NPC battleship signature radius appears to be about 340 m. So my target is to either raise that signature radius and/or lower the explosion radius until they are close to equal. Do I really need 2 T2 Rigor rigs and 1 T1 Rigor rig to do this, as was suggested in one thread I read? I don't think so. Lets look at the ways we can change either the signature radius or the explosion radius:
- Target Painters -- these increase the signature radius of the target by up to 30%.
- Guided Missile Precision skill -- this decreases the explosion radius by 5% per level.
- Rigor rigs -- these decrease the explosion radius by 15% for T1 rigs to 20% for T2 rigs.
With target painters out of my plan, that means I need to reduce the explosion radius by about 40%. That's (567 - 340) / 567. To keep things reasonable, I'm not going to suggest pushing Guided Missile Precision to 5, but we do have a ways to go, so lets say push it to 4. That's a 20% reduction. A single T1 Rigor rig is an easy fit. That's another 15%. If they add directly, we are already at 35%, or roughly 32% if they stack more like resists. That's already enough for a large number of NPC battleships. If we want to push it down all the way to the target 40% reduction, which may not even be worthwhile, we can either switch out the T1 rig for a T2 rig, train the skill up to 5, or maybe use 2 T1 rigs and not worry about training the skill up past 3.
The whole point of this exercise is this -- if you want to really optimize your fit, consider your needs carefully, and if needed, do the math to figure it out. Do I need 2 T2 Rigors, maybe also a T1 Rigor, and maxed GMP skill? No! As I determined above, that is major overkill considering I only want to use T2 cruise missiles against the battleships. I can get by just fine with a single Rigor rig and GMP skill at 4.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Target Painters and Torpedos
I spent some time recently experimenting with target painters. In particular, I wanted to test out the effectiveness of using target painters with missiles. I could just go straight to equations, but nothing beats hard data. So I set up some tests using torpedos against stationary targets to see what the difference in damage would be both with and without a target painter. A target painter increases the signature radius of a target, and the damage done by a missile is dependent on target signature radius, so a painted target should take more missile damage than an unpainted target. Below are the results:
Test torpedo:
Test targets:
Note that the actual signature radius of the test ships is more than the base signature radius shown due to having shield extenders equipped. I equipped the ships with shield extenders to give them a larger shield buffer to make testing easier. Damage shown is against shields only, without dropping into armor. Torpedos were fired from a Purifier. My torpedo and ship skills were low to moderate, mostly levels 3 and 2 for all affecting skills.
The damage increase is significant on targets where the target painter's affect can be utilized fully. Interestingly, the damage increase came out as the exact same value as the signature radius increase of the painter. I wasn't expecting the correlation to be linear, but if we now go look at the equations, I expect that is what we will find.
The signature radius of the MTU is larger than the explosion radius of the torpedo, so that serves as a control of sorts. You can see the damage applied is already maxed out, as the painter had no affect on damage when used against the MTU. It also shows how much the damage is reduced against smaller targets. Against the frigate, damage was reduced to less than 10% of maximum potential. That is huge! While the painter increases damage significantly, it's still going to be way less than maximum against such small targets.
I also included in the table Light Missile DPS (using Meta 3 launcher, because Meta 4 is ridiculously expensive), to compare and see when Light Missiles are actually better than using torpedos. Torpedos have an advantage here because I am using the Torpedo bonuses of a Purifer. As shown, light missiles actually do better against the frigate, but the torpedos work better on the tested Destroyer and above. For DPS, I did not include reload time in the DPS calculation, so bare that in mind. Doing so when considering a long battle might change the results a little.
One additional note: Torpedos are supposedly not affected by the Guided Missile Precision skill, which is one reason why I used them. I didn't want any more variables to factor in than there had to be.
Further Research:
The torpedo stats came from Evelopedia. I'm not fully confident I understand why there are separate base damage attributes for shields and armor. It suggests that torpedo damage will be less against armor than against shields, without taking resists into consideration. It didn't show a separate number for structure, but I would guess it would be the same as the EM damage shown, 450. Why the damage would be reduced against armor, I don't know. I would also be nice to run some numbers taking moving ships into account, but this would be a much harder test to set up. I'm not sure if I will run such a test or not, but if I do, I will post the results in another blog entry.
Until then, fly safe, and try to make room for a target painter when flying a missile boat against small or mixed targets.
Test torpedo:
- Torpedo Type: Mjolnir Torpedo
- EM Damage: 450
- Explosion Radius: 450 m
- Base Shield Damage: 450
- Base Armor Damage: 180
- Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron (Meta 4)
- Signature Radius Bonus: 30%
- Prototype 'Arbalyst' Torpedo Launcher, Meta 4
- Experimental TE-2100 Light Missile Launcher, Meta 3 (I used Meta 3 because that is the T1 version I would tend to use due to the really high cost of the Meta 4 light launchers -- Meta 3 is about 700K each, Meta 4 is about 4 million each)
Test targets:
- Navitas, Frigate, base sig radius of 36 m, 2 Medium Shield Extenders
- Catalyst, Destroyer, base sig radius of 68 m
- Exequror, Cruiser, base sig radius of 80 m, 2 Medium Shield Extenders
- Mobile Tractor Unit, sig radius of 500 m
Note that the actual signature radius of the test ships is more than the base signature radius shown due to having shield extenders equipped. I equipped the ships with shield extenders to give them a larger shield buffer to make testing easier. Damage shown is against shields only, without dropping into armor. Torpedos were fired from a Purifier. My torpedo and ship skills were low to moderate, mostly levels 3 and 2 for all affecting skills.
| Target | Base Damage | Painted Damage | Damage Increase | Painted DPS | Light Missile DPS |
| Navitas | 70 | 91 | 30% | 8.6 | 12.7 |
| Catalyst | 150 | 195 | 30% | 18.5 | 12.7 |
| Exequror | 155 | 202 | 30% | 19.1 | 12.7 |
| MTU | 785 | 785 | 0% | 74.3 | 12.7 |
The damage increase is significant on targets where the target painter's affect can be utilized fully. Interestingly, the damage increase came out as the exact same value as the signature radius increase of the painter. I wasn't expecting the correlation to be linear, but if we now go look at the equations, I expect that is what we will find.
The signature radius of the MTU is larger than the explosion radius of the torpedo, so that serves as a control of sorts. You can see the damage applied is already maxed out, as the painter had no affect on damage when used against the MTU. It also shows how much the damage is reduced against smaller targets. Against the frigate, damage was reduced to less than 10% of maximum potential. That is huge! While the painter increases damage significantly, it's still going to be way less than maximum against such small targets.
I also included in the table Light Missile DPS (using Meta 3 launcher, because Meta 4 is ridiculously expensive), to compare and see when Light Missiles are actually better than using torpedos. Torpedos have an advantage here because I am using the Torpedo bonuses of a Purifer. As shown, light missiles actually do better against the frigate, but the torpedos work better on the tested Destroyer and above. For DPS, I did not include reload time in the DPS calculation, so bare that in mind. Doing so when considering a long battle might change the results a little.
One additional note: Torpedos are supposedly not affected by the Guided Missile Precision skill, which is one reason why I used them. I didn't want any more variables to factor in than there had to be.
Further Research:
The torpedo stats came from Evelopedia. I'm not fully confident I understand why there are separate base damage attributes for shields and armor. It suggests that torpedo damage will be less against armor than against shields, without taking resists into consideration. It didn't show a separate number for structure, but I would guess it would be the same as the EM damage shown, 450. Why the damage would be reduced against armor, I don't know. I would also be nice to run some numbers taking moving ships into account, but this would be a much harder test to set up. I'm not sure if I will run such a test or not, but if I do, I will post the results in another blog entry.
Until then, fly safe, and try to make room for a target painter when flying a missile boat against small or mixed targets.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Battleship - Missiles and Drones
With the Drone Avionics bug fixed in the 7/31 patch, it was time to try out a ranged missile and drone battleship -- the Armageddon -- to see how it compares to the close range Abaddon I used previously. Unfortunately, sentry drones had a requirement I wasn't expecting, and I can't use them yet. Doh! So I settled for medium drones.
With a ranged missile and drone boat, there are several range aspects to look at: targeting range, missile range, drone command range, and for sentry drones, the drone optimal and falloff range. With my extremely limited skills, here is what it initially looked like for me:
DPS with 5 meta 4 cruise missile launchers and medium drones started at 330. Not good. But I tried a mission anyway. The results were encouraging. I never had to flee the battle, and I didn't even have to use the MJD I had equipped. However, I was careful to know the triggers for missions spawns and used mission specific hardeners, so that always helps.
All in all, I really like it. If I train up my support skills and get sentry drones up and running, I think this will be an awesome way to do level 4 missions.
With a ranged missile and drone boat, there are several range aspects to look at: targeting range, missile range, drone command range, and for sentry drones, the drone optimal and falloff range. With my extremely limited skills, here is what it initially looked like for me:
- Targeting Range: 71.5 km base, 109 km with scripted sensor booster
- Cruise Missile Range: 65 km
- Drone Control Range: 40 km base, 80 km with 2 Drone Link Augmentor I modules
- Sentry Optimal/Falloff: Didn't check, can't use them yet.
DPS with 5 meta 4 cruise missile launchers and medium drones started at 330. Not good. But I tried a mission anyway. The results were encouraging. I never had to flee the battle, and I didn't even have to use the MJD I had equipped. However, I was careful to know the triggers for missions spawns and used mission specific hardeners, so that always helps.
All in all, I really like it. If I train up my support skills and get sentry drones up and running, I think this will be an awesome way to do level 4 missions.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Battleship - A New Hope
In my prior post I talked about going close range with my Battleship in L4 missions. I eventually optimized to using pulse lasers with XRay crystals, based on the range I was most often fighting at while minimizing use of the microwarp drive to conserve cap. I got my DPS up to a usable 475 DPS (originally starting at 305). And you know what? It was doable, but still a massive lengthy slog to get through a mission. It takes a long time, I have to make multiple return trips to the station, and I go through a ton of cap boosters (doesn't help that I'm flying an Amarr battleship with no cap bonus).
I want to try something different until my skills are higher. I want to use missiles! Time to try a battleship missile boat. Lucky for me, Amarr has an option -- the Armageddon. Will this work better in a T1 equipped variant than my close fighting Abaddon? I'm going to find out. But I've got about a weeks worth of skills to train first.
In the meantime, I need to come up with another 300 million ISK to buy and outfit a new Armageddon. I can play the market a little and sell some loot I've been holding onto. What else should I do? Should I mine or mission? I'm going to go back to L3 missions. And I had another idea. Some will scoff at me for doing this -- but rather than let my Abaddon sit idle, I'm going to try it out on L3 missions. Maybe I can get through them quicker in my T1 battleship than I can in my T1 battlecruiser. I've tried a few already, and the results are encouraging. I think the added firepower of the battleship will outweigh the difficulty of dealing with greater numbers of L3 frigates and net a better income overall.
UPDATE: After running a series of L3 missions, at the moment it looks most efficient to have both a battlecruiser and a battleship on hand (which conveniently I already had). Use the battlecruiser for the smaller missions that have rewards under 300K ISK / 500 LP, and use the battleship for the bigger missions that are more in the neighborhood of 700K ISK / 900 LP. The smaller missions even a T1 battlecruiser can handle quickly and easily, and it can get there and back faster. Also, for the battleship, consider freeing of a medium slot to fit a tracking CPU with tracking script. Again, all of this is speaking from the viewpoint of a modest skilled pilot using mostly T1 equipment.
I want to try something different until my skills are higher. I want to use missiles! Time to try a battleship missile boat. Lucky for me, Amarr has an option -- the Armageddon. Will this work better in a T1 equipped variant than my close fighting Abaddon? I'm going to find out. But I've got about a weeks worth of skills to train first.
In the meantime, I need to come up with another 300 million ISK to buy and outfit a new Armageddon. I can play the market a little and sell some loot I've been holding onto. What else should I do? Should I mine or mission? I'm going to go back to L3 missions. And I had another idea. Some will scoff at me for doing this -- but rather than let my Abaddon sit idle, I'm going to try it out on L3 missions. Maybe I can get through them quicker in my T1 battleship than I can in my T1 battlecruiser. I've tried a few already, and the results are encouraging. I think the added firepower of the battleship will outweigh the difficulty of dealing with greater numbers of L3 frigates and net a better income overall.
UPDATE: After running a series of L3 missions, at the moment it looks most efficient to have both a battlecruiser and a battleship on hand (which conveniently I already had). Use the battlecruiser for the smaller missions that have rewards under 300K ISK / 500 LP, and use the battleship for the bigger missions that are more in the neighborhood of 700K ISK / 900 LP. The smaller missions even a T1 battlecruiser can handle quickly and easily, and it can get there and back faster. Also, for the battleship, consider freeing of a medium slot to fit a tracking CPU with tracking script. Again, all of this is speaking from the viewpoint of a modest skilled pilot using mostly T1 equipment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)