Practical Instruction

(Well, the comments have been interesting so far, haven't they?

I'll have more to say about the 50,000 ft issues later, but I'm going to focus on one specific challenge here.)

Generally, the gauntlet thrown down is "How are Uni students going to be better off with this war?"

In addition to all the other stuff that they should be learning, here's what I'm going to do that is totally out of the box.

I'll be commenting on specific ship fits that I find in our killmails that I think will be instructive.

Now, I hope you agree that it's a little unusual that I'd do that publicly and while the war is still active. Aiding & abetting the enemy & all that. Hell, Sabre may put ME on the target list!

I'm willing to take that chance to demonstrate:

- It's not personal
- Ex-Uni can, and will, provide valuable information
- It's not personal
- It is possible to critically review a ship fit without using the words "FAIL", "NOOB" or "LOLFIT" in such a way that guidance is presented not personal criticism.
- It's not personal

As I make my comments, remember, IT'S NOT PERSONAL!

*******************************

Now, I know a thing or two about Caldari EWAR ships, so lets take a look at a few of those:

1. http://killboard.eve-ivy.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3181229

/me smiles.

Very nice fit, sir! Completely in line with the role of Blackbird as cheap fleet jammer. No rigs. Jam for tank. More than Meta 1 jammers. Sensor booster with scan res script for quick lock. SDA's in the low. MWD allows sprint out to range and 'spank align' (be sure you understand the speed vs sig radius tradeoff). Armor repper in the utility slot to show a fleet mate some love.

The only change I'd make is to load up some faction ammo, not a whole cargo load, but just a few hundred to improve your DPS while you are on the battlefield.

2. http://killboard.eve-ivy.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3181232

/me smiles.

Another pretty good fit! Lack of AB or MWD means that you will be slow to get out to position. That may be acceptable if you have tons of bookmarks in the systems where you are likely to engage. Lack of a range script for the sensor booster implies that you've rethought this fit post ECM-nerf. With the scan res script loaded, if you can lock at your jam optimal + say 25% then the faster lock time will help you in quickdraw engagements where first lock = first jam.

Mix of jammer meta level indicates that you understand that, too.

Neut in the utility high slot is ok. My personal preference is for an armor repper, but it's just a preference.

FOF's are really out of place on a Blackbird. If you are jammed, you are about to be dead or you should be bouncing out and returning to the fight so your jammers can be effective again. Either way, FOF's just take up space. No real need for all that ammo either. Your role in the fight is ECM, not DPS. Carry a few faction rounds of ecm/kinetic & don't worry about it.

3. http://killboard.eve-ivy.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3176145

/me scratches head.

Pre-ECM nerf, this would be close to the fit that I would have been flying. My only nit would be 2x Minnie jammers. Minnie sensor strength is generally lower than the equivilent hull of other races and I mostly jam them with off-race jammers.

Post ECM-nerf, not so much. Sensor booster + range script gives you lock range of about 240, which is more than Optimal + 2X Falloff. In other words, you can lock well beyond the range at which you can jam. Swapping to scan res script gives you lock range of 150, which is just about Optimal + 2x Falloff and reduces locktime.

The key question is, how close to the fight are you planning on engaging? If you are going to standoff at 90-100km (so past Optimal, but within 1X Falloff, accepting the lower success rate of fighting in Falloff) then a sensor booster to improve locktime might be considered.

On the other hand, if you are going to fight at close to Optimal (65km), then you may want to think about swapping that sensor booster for another jammer (ECM tank) or for a LSEII (shield buffer tank).

4. http://killboard.eve-ivy.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3181230

/me holds head in hands.

Now, I know the Rook is the new FOTM and everyone is hailing the 'new Cerb', but let's calm down a sec, m'kay?

General rules:
- There has to be some very specific purpose if you fit a ship ignoring it's main bonuses.
- Fit to compliment your fleet.
- If you have to use more than 1 low for CPU/PG buffs, you are probably trying to make a hull do something it wasn't designed for or you lack sufficient support skills for the fit.

The Rook is an EW platform. For large fleet actions by a group whose tactical doctrine includes an abundance of EWAR, EW platforms should fit EW.

If you want to sling DPS, a Caracal with 2 BCSII's will output more DPS than this fit at a fraction of the cost and is fully insurable.

*******************

Remember, it's not personal.

DC

Response by request

Dee, feel free to explain just how you "believe that Uni can serve the new pilots even better than they do today". As has been said many times, anyone is free to set up their own competitor to E-UNI, and anyone doing so is welcome, but if there are things that can be done better now than when you were in charge, you should know I would be willing to hear them.

Personally, I find your attack against the POS, an asset provided to the membership at below public costs as a non-profit project, to be both disappointing and distressing.

So far, I have seen no actions which could be seen as benefiting Eve University, and in fact you threaten the continuance of its mission to educate players in all aspects of Eve.

The fact that after being Director of Operations for so long, you seem to have forgotten your reasons for leaving E-UNI, is what may be the most worrying aspect.

The question stands however - what, precisely would you do differently?

--
Kelduum Revaan
Director of Operations
Eve University

Hmmm... This is going to be a long one, so I encourage you to take a break, get a drink and come back refreshed. ;)

I'll make only a few specific comments about the POS attack last night and then move on from there.

1. The operation last night had no intention of putting the Uni POS into reinforced. Even a cursory examination of our fleet composition would have made that clear.

2. We had hoped to get a fight since you outnumbered us by at least 2 to 1 (force ratio was more in your favor really, as our gang included scouts, pickets & covops and no EWAR). We even sat still for long periods so your probers could get a warp in spot.

3. After more than two hours of plinking away at a few mods, our long range ships were running low on ammo and it was well into the middle of a weeknight, so we headed out.

4. From our side, we received some practical techniques and approaches to POS shooting and RR gangs (including my getting Concordonkened when I launched the wrong set of drones, to everyone's amusement, including my own!)

5. Your guys received some valuable experience in the techniques of POS repping, including how to deal with folks sniping your reppers.

6. No smack in local from our guys, although the Uni can inside the shield named "NO ASS LUBE 4 YOU" was a homey touch, I thought. ;)

Given that the mods were repped up within 12 hours, I fail to see how this could possibly 'threaten the continuance' of anything, much less an organization with the proven resilience and adaptablilty of Uni.

As for forgetting why I left, nothing could be further from the case, as I previously explained.

Which is more honorable? Attacking the POS of a declared WT in Empire or flying co-operatively with others to launch a suprise attack on the low sec POS of a set of 'pirates' that you are not at war with?

Which is more transparent? Openly declaring a NBSI policy everywhere or communicating NRDS (except in space that we claim sov where it's NBSI, but we don't have any 0.0 space, so that's not a player, and in WH space where we still fly NRDS unless someone enters 'our' wormhole, then we fly NBSI and they can figure out which wormhole is 'ours' when we start shooting them... {And that clear cut explanation only came to pass after ex-Uni folks pointed out the disparity between what your policies stated and what your actions demonstrated.})?


Which is more consistent? "See flashy, shoot flashy!" or "See flashy, shoot flashy, but not my Precious!"

Which is more loyal? Caring enough about friends to try and help them get a clearer picture of the world (virtual though it may be) or unilateraly removing the SA rights of the owner of your TS server's agent (who has been providing you TS service for free for years!), deleting all of the owner's corp channels, selectively purging forum access and using your own standings errors to gain changes under threat of refusing to allow those that fly with someone else to ever fly Uni colors again?

Which is more reasonable? To confine discussions of differences to private threads among higher levels of leadership or to openly call for the members of another corp to, in effect, mutiny in a preemptive fashion?

Uni does a wonderful job of teaching the mechanics of Eve, but presents only a limited view of the mindset of Eve. And, in my experience, the mindset presented is not the one that permeates Eve.

It seems to me, the initial question that you might seek to answer is this: "Can so many people that held, or still hold, positions of leadership in the Uni, including multiple DirOps (or equivalent), multiple Directors, multiple Managers and long time vets of the game, accurately, and without malice, see something from the outside about us that we can't see from an internal perspective?"

If you firmly believe the answer to that question is 'no', there is really nothing more to discuss.

If you can honestly answer that question 'yes', I think you will see the next steps clearly, as well.

As I can no longer post in the Alumni section of the Uni boards, you have my permission to link or quote this response (in it's entirety) as you see fit in the thread requesting feedback. Some of your members are crossposting portions of that thread to the Seppuku boards, where all are welcome and I will be linking it there.

Best regards,

Dee

Open Letter to The Students of Eve University

Open Letter to The Students of Eve University

Many of you have expressed questions about why I would choose to participate in a war dec of Uni and why Seppuku has chosen to issue that dec.

Because Seppuku Pilots have been dropped from the scetions of your boards where you are discussing this (understandably), I will use this forum to try and explain it as best I can.

Seppuku has been offered contracts to dec the Uni before and we have turned them down. We have been offered these contracts by multiple folks, all of whom harbored Uni only ill will and had no justification for that animus. They were all turned down.

The current dec is the result of a contract offered under substantially different circumstances and based on other... let's just say.. less than friendly attitudes and actions taken by some members of Uni's current leadership toward us and others, there was no overwhelming reason to stay our hand again. Any possibility of reasonable discussion was quickly dispatched by both deeds and attitudes from both sides.

99.9% of all of this took place behind the scenes, with students seeing only what Uni leadership chose to disclose, as is their prerogative.

So, Seppuku has gone merc?

Not officially. Our mission remains the same. We are learning together by blowing stuff up and getting blown up. If someone wants to pay us for that, so much the better!

So, why am I choosing to participate? Have I failed in some duty to babysit Sabre like a 12 year granddaughter? Have I crossed over to the Dark Side and become another of the BAAAAAD MENZ that prey upon the poor poor noobs?

ROFLMAO!

Let's get a few things clear:

1. I have the utmost respect for Morning Maniac and his vision.

2. I have the same level of respect for the stated ideals, goals and objectives of Uni.

3. I strongly believe that Uni is the best place for any new player to start the game.

4. I am very proud of the time I spent at Uni and continue to be honored to have served there.

When I left Uni, I did so because I felt an increasing level of discomfort with some of the ideas and concepts that were being communicated. There was an increasing level of partisanship, that I freely admit I bought into at first. This 'bunker mentality' permeates and surrounds all. The message was that if you fought Uni, you were destroying the game, you were griefing and mere scum to be despised and disposed of. Internet Spaceships was DAMN SERIOUS and conflict should be approach only in the grave manner normally associated with real world issues of life and death.

But, increasingly, I interacted with those that, according to what was being espoused internally, I should hate, have nothing in common with and be prepared to find only the worst of humanity.

What I found was significantly different.

Most (not all!) were decent folks who didn't have any particular gripe with Uni. They were just out for a little fun with their pixels. They weren't vermin or lowlifes or bottomfeeders.

Trying to reconcile this disconnect (among other 'pinches') left me with the conclusion that I had to leave, at least for a time.

In my time away from Uni, I have learned much (MWD is not optional in 0.0, m'kay?), relearned much (everything in the game is PvP related, just in different guises) and unlearned much (I don't have to hate you to shoot you and just because you shoot me doesn't mean you hate me! It's not personal!).

I have learned that Internet Spaceships is not DAMN SERIOUS, that rearranging pixels on the screen can be great fun and a little smack never hurt anything. Oh yeah, and I learned that Sabre was right about just as many things as I was. ;)

That's all fine, you say, but why are you fighting Uni?

Three reasons:

1. I fight with my Corpmates.

2. Because I believe that Uni can serve the new pilots even better than they do today.

3. Because it will be FUN, win lose or draw.

Respectfully,

Dee Carson

PS: If you want my Director Emeritus medal, you can pry it from my cold, dead, hand.

PPS: Only 20 Million for my corpse? Hell, I'll match that, AK, you slacker! Lol

A better proposal

No matter how loudly the checker players whine about Falcons sitting out at 200km 'permajamming' and how emphatically they support the currently proposed changes, their real beef is with jam strength.

And the proposed changes do not affect that at all. Falcons are still going to jam an interceptor with one module everytime and have a 94% probability of jamming a cruiser sized hull with 2 modules.

I suggest the following changes that address the real issues, but neither require scrapping the entire mechanic nor assigning another Caldari role to the scrap heap.

1. Decrease base jammer strength 20% across the board (reduced probability of jam).
2. New ECCM module that adds flat 15 points to sensor strength (more anti-jam, particularly for small ships)
3. SDA bonus applies to all EWAR modules (including ECCM, TD, TP & damps)
4. Falcon base optimal/falloff of 45/45 (brings Falcon in closer)
5. Split Cruiser skill bonus to 10/10 for Optimal and Falloff (brings Falcon in closer)

The results from a Falcon pilot's view:

- 17% reduction in jamming strength and 55% reduction in optimal (max jam fit)

or

- 26% reduction in jamming strength and 34% reduction in optimal (max optimal fit)

Falcons won't be as powerful, but they will continue to have a role in fleet/small gang work.

DC

It's still not Checkers 2.0

CCP Devs have reconsidered at least one facet of the proposed ECM nerf, agreeing that the Falcon's role is that of long range jamming platform.

The nerf methodology of flipping the optimal/falloff stats of jammers will bring me closer to the fight and increase the danger of a missed jam.

However, it in no way affects the probability of me obtaining that jam. In other words, if you were bitching about getting 'permajammed' under the existing rules, you will see absolutely no difference. None. Nada. Zero. Your interceptor is still going to get taken out of the fight every time.

The stealth part of the nerf is the removal of the cap useage bonus. I haven't been able to model that quite yet to determine how severe the hit will be, but it will cause more missed cycles because of dry cap.

Here's my reply in the EO thread:

- With the revised Falcon changes
- With the flip of base optimal and falloff ranges
- With no change in either SDA, PDA or PDP stats
- With fit of 3 SDA + 2 PDP (so max jammer)
- With max related skills

Yields:
Optimal 46% reduction from 227 to 122.
Optimal + Falloff 25 % reduction from 267 to 202
No change in jamming strength which remains at 14.4

The results:

- No change in the probabilities of a jam. If you were on the wrong end of the jam strength vs sensor strength math before, you still are. Repeat, you still are.

- Increased danger related to a missed jam because you are inside engagement range of more OPFOR.

Easy Predictions:

- More Falcons on the field to cover the missed jams.
- Snipers will be the next nerf target, because with engagement ranges > any other ship on the field, the whines will start all over again.

Sorry CCP, but these changes won't obtain the result you seem to be after.

Once the checker players realize that their short range, one dimensional, total WTFOMGPWNZR mobiles are going to get jammed just as often, you'll see the expressed satisfaction with this proposed nerf drop like a rock.

Chess vs Checkers

Checkers is an easy game, really. There’s a bit of strategy involved, but no one writes books about it. You don’t see checkers columns in the newspapers and the World Checker Champion isn’t though of as being particularly brilliant.

Take a checker player & put him on a chess board and things just don’t seem fair to him. The rules are different and the way to win is no longer straight forward. Confronted with this situation, most folks either learn to play chess (appreciating it for what it is) or return to checkers (playing what they enjoy). Few resort to calling for changes in the rules of chess to make it into Checkers 2.0.

These days, in Eve Online, it seems the Devs are listening to the checker players.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032703

Yes, I’m a dedicated, maxed out Falcon pilot with months of invested training time, get that out of the way from the beginning.

However, the implication that Falcons are so overpowered that they need to be drastically changed is simply wrong. And wrong on several levels.

The role of the Falcon is that of force multiplier. It’s weapons are stealth and denying the enemy the ability to inflict damage. It has no tank and laughable DPS. The Falcon rewards pilots, FC’s and corps that understand tactics, that have the patience to prepare the battlefield and have the situational awareness to know when it’s time to move. Falcon’s are for chessmasters, not checker players.

Falcons are extremely vulnerable on their own. With no tank, minimal DPS and no drone bay, there are many ways to get a Falcon pilot to leave the battlefield, denying his force multiplier effect to your OPFOR. Bring your own Falcon or have a cruiser with combat probes ready to drop 1 short range probe, establish a warp in and insta-pop the Falcon or send an interceptor with a flight of Warrior II’s assigned out to the Falcon or warp your own set of anti-Falcon snipers into the fight after the Falcon is revealed or fit an ECCM module. Being ready to counter Falcons requires preparation and planning, but it is not impossible. It’s for chessmasters, not checker players.

And even if the foregoing wasn’t true, the proposed changes will not have the desired result.

To balance things out, Falcons will lose the range advantage, but will get more jam strength, more tank, more agility and more DPS.

And the checker players _like_ this?

Instead of reducing the number of Falcon pilots flying in small gangs, this will actually increase their proportionate representation. If you increase my jam strength 25%, then the number of jammers I need to be ready to apply to a representative battleship target to have a 94% probability of a successful jam drops from 3 modules to 2. So, 94% of the time my 6 jammer set up can service 3 battleship targets now, instead of just 2. What about cruisers and HAC’s? 1 jammer need now for 93% probability of success instead of 2.

Does this sound like a nerf to you?

For those that think that Falcons are overpowered in their effectiveness, I’d suggest you support a combination of the following easy changes:

1. Shorten the jam cycle
2. Reduce the base strength of all jammer modules by 10%
3. Reduce the optimal range bonuses by 5KM per level
4. Introduce scripts to Signal Distortion Amplifiers, 1 for optimal, 1 for strength

The results would bring Falcons closer to the fight and with a lowered probability of success. That is what you want, right?

PK-4

Flying a Falcon: the 3 F's

Everything you need to know about flying a Falcon can be summarized by remembering the 3 F’s: Fit, Forethought, and Finesse.

Fit

Hi slots: Cov Ops Cloak. Everything else is optional. Probe launcher? Sure, but no ship bonuses, so your scans will take time. Heavy launchers? Ok, but if you are actually putting DPS on someone, you are either in very small gang flight against 1 guy or things have gone horribly bad. Remote armor reppers will earn you some ‘after the battle’ love, but are of no use during the engagement. Salvager, meh. Whatever. The cloak is the reason for the ship. Training Recons to 4 helps a great deal, but I didn’t even consider a probe launcher until I got to Recon 5.

Mid slots: 1X MicroWarpDrive, 1X Sensor Booster II, 4x Racial Jammers. 1X ECCM _or_ 5th racial jammer. The idea is to carry as many jammers as possible. MWD is a given. Sensor booster for quick lock on any other jammers on the field. ECCM if OPFOR is known to fly their own Falcons. Racial jammers in every remaining slot. Double up on known OPFOR favorite ship type.

Low slots: 2x Signal Distortion Amplifiers, 1X Tank (DCU II or 1600 plate) _or_ 3rd SDA.

Rigs: 1X Particle Disruption Projector (jam range) plus either 1x Particle Dispersion Augmentor (jam strength) if you fit tank in lows or 1X additional Particle Disruption Projector (jam range).

The goal is to obtain an engagement envelope in excess of 150-175km and then to maximize your jam strength at that range. Jamming is purely chance based and calculated by looking at the ratio of jam strength to target ship sensor strength. For example, my max jam strength for Gallente in my preferred fit is 14.52. Kaye’s Vexor has sensor strength of 14. 14.52 / 14 > 1, so I would perma jam Kaye’s Vexor. Kaye’s base Onerios has sensor strength of 20. 14.52/20 = 72% probability of a jam. Add an ECCM module to that Onerios and things get ugly (sensor strength goes to 36, probability falls to 40%). Add 3 and sensor strength goes to 89, with probability of 16%.

Megathron’s base sensor strength of 21 gives me about a 70% chance of a jam.

Key concept is that this probability is independent (ie the results of one ‘roll’ have no impact on the next) and is determined separately for each jammer. Quick and dirty method to approximate your total chance of jamming a given target with N number of jammers is to multiply all of the chances of a ‘miss’ and subtract from 1.

So, using our plain Mega or Onerios and 3 Gallente jammers we get:
Jammer 1 - 30% independent - 30% Cum Miss
Jammer 2 - 30% independent - 09% Cum Miss
Jammer 3 - 30% independent - 03% Cum Miss

If you think about it, this also hints toward why I never fly multispecs.

Forethought

If you have an established base, then you should have tons of bookmarks at your preferred jamming range. For stations, that’s usually measured from the undock point. You want book marks in all directions from that spot and, you want them to all be warpable from each spot. Six is a good minimum number to work toward. High, low, left, right, back, front. Have an offgrid spot or two and you are set.

Secondly, spend time on the OPFOR’s killboard if you can. Figure out what ships their main pilots fly and if there is an overall favorite race. If so, that tells you how to weight your jammers.

Finesse

Get in the mindset of the young Muhammad Ali. Long range jabs of power. Nimble. Moving about the battlespace, out of range of the other guy, frustrating his ability to hurt you (or your fleet mates). Don’t uncloak too soon. Always be moving. Co-ordinate jams with other Falcon pilots. Be alert for ‘ceptors! When they start heading your way, prepare to warp to the other side of the battlespace (using one of those handy bookmarks!) or to bounce off your offgrid & come back.

Prioritize your jamming. Put your racial matches where they will do the most good first, then follow up by putting anything left back on the target that you wish to have jammed the most.

Don’t initially jam targets that are sitting on the undock point or a gate. You want them to aggress so that they have a timer.

Don’t spam all the jammers you have allocated to a target at once. Hit one, wait 5 or 10 secs and then hit the next one. You want to minimize the amount of time between ‘rolls’.

Hope you find something useful here!