T'vaar Dekdarion

Yep, I can believe it. The extra damage would do it, and the period when the bastion mod duration was 30 seconds would make it extra enticing. And with all the bastioned marauders self-repping, I can see why fewer logi would be needed, too.

Hi all, Just checking in after a long, long break and I see the optimal Basilisk has changed a bunch, and so I’m wondering what led to those changes, whether it’s a CCP change to incursions or a fleet philosophy change or what. I used to fly an optimal Basilisk with a ReSebo, signal amplifier (12 locks and faster), and 35k EHP. It looks like there’s now no cap chain and the new Basis are cap stable (almost) but at the cost of the ReSebo, SigAmp, and half the tank. Curious why the doctrine change and how the new philosophy works. I’m not actually back yet, but it’d be good to fly again. Separately, it’s nice to see the Osprey got a little love. https://forums.warptome.net/topic/1887-nikis-capsprey-guide-for-hq-sites/ https://forums.warptome.net/topic/203-entry-level-logi-logistics-skill-is-zero/ Hoping things are going well in Incursionland, -T’vaar

Good catch. I consulted an old version of Pyfa and bastions did not have the doubled rate of fire originally. I think the 4x launchers at 2x damage each put marauders roughly on par with regular battleships otherwise.

Ahhhhh - thank you for explaining that! I remembered the bastion duration being the barrier before, but when I went to look at the change I was surprised to see it's the same now as it was then.

Wow. Thanks. Yep, that's a pretty radical change from before. Looks like marauders have pretty much entirely replaced Vindicators for preferred DPS, and total logi count is less. Used to be like 9 logi (3 combat caps plus scimitars), 10 snipers, and Vindicators for the rest. https://forums.warptome.net/topic/344-ideal-fleet-composition/?tab=comments#comment-2338

Thanks all for explaining. I understand better now. Yeah, there didn’t used to be marauders, really. Bastion modules were prohibited. And we used to have a cap chain, and we used to accept Basilisk pilots with Logistics skill 4 (who needed two incoming cap transfers for stability), so I can see those changes calling for doctrine shift. Battleships do lock up pretty fast, agreed. The SigAmp and ReSebo were more for crisis situations where we had to save a Scimitar or something. The 12 locks and fast lock time were more of a luxury for crisis management than for normal, smooth fleet operation. Having lots of pre-locks is nice. Also tended to get jammed less often. I remember when ReSebos switched to the command ships. Basi pilots who had them could then just turn them on their cap buddies for those faster locks and jam prevention. On 3/3 Basis, I think command core might have flown those on rare occasions but not generally. With the cap chain, each (Logi 5) Basi had one combat cap instead of the 2 you get now. I imagine you now run fleets with a higher Scimi/Basi ratio than we used to have, so the net fleet change might be that in exchange for thinning the Basi tank in favor of cap stability, you can get adequate combat caps in fleet with fewer Basilisk hulls and can therefore field more Scimitars with tracking links and thereby run faster. I don’t know if it ends up working that way in practice, but I can see that being the theory, and it’s consistent with Tani’s post (thanks!). What does today’s fleet comp tend to look like?

"I'd like to try Logi, but the skill train is SOOO long." "How many injectors do I need to fly a Basi? 20-ish?!? Never mind." "We have to stand down the fleet for lack of Logi." "We don't have enough combat caps to take this site." Anybody else keep hearing things like that? Ideally there would be some way for curious or Logi-aspiring pilots to be able to get some field experience with the Logi role without needing to commit zillions of SP beforehand. Similarly, it would be nice if there was a way for battleship pilots who don't have the Logistics Cruiser skill to be able to fill in and keep a fleet running rather than having to stand down the fleet for lack of Logi. To those ends (and also because I like them), I've been looking at Ospreys. [TLDR: Well-fit Ospreys might be able to plug gaps in Logi group when standard Logi pilots are not available.] As it turns out, the spectacular hull bonuses on the Osprey make it possible to fit one such that it functionally mimics a Basilisk with a Logi-4 pilot and no remote sebo - including equal or better repping power and a combat cap (meaning that just like a Logi-4 Basi, adding it to the chain does not increase the total number of combat caps). The beauty is that a "Logistics skill = zero" pilot can fly it. The easiest scenario to fix is a shortage of combat caps. If it's a choice between standing down the fleet or finding some combat caps, and no qualified Logi pilots are available, the fleet could put nearly ANY pilot in the following ship and fix the problem. Even a pilot with absolutely atrocious skills can fly it and make it function as intended. The pilot just has to be awake and understand how to respond to broadcasts. Just plug it into the cap chain, give it two cap transfers, and it adds a net +3 combat caps to fleet. The mids and lows in the fit below are flexible, but there is plenty of fitting space available to throw money at it to make sure it can tank adequately, and to address any other perceived weaknesses. [Osprey 0/5 EASY] Sentient Signal Amplifier Syndicate Damage Control Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Thukker Large Shield Extender 10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II On the higher end, if the fleet needs more actual Logi ships, the following fit will mimic a Logi-4 Basilisk in terms of cap-chain and repping power (total repping power is actually higher than a Basi). The fit is tighter, and stability (even with 2x incoming cap transfers) requires max Caldari Cruiser and Shield Emission Systems skills, but again, a pilot with Logistics skill = zero can fly it. The following fit is just an example for discussion - incursion fitting gurus should feel free to change it. With adequate skills, though (per above), it plugs seamlessly into a Basilisk cap chain just like a Logi 4 Basi pilot, and has more repping power than the Basi does. The main challenge is making it tank adequately - which more experienced minds than mine will need to assess. [Osprey - Logi-4 Basi Mimic] True Sansha Reactor Control Unit Syndicate Damage Control Dread Guristas Co-Processor Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Thukker Large Shield Extender 10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Large Murky Compact Remote Shield Booster Large Murky Compact Remote Shield Booster Large Murky Compact Remote Shield Booster Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Ancillary Current Router II Medium Ancillary Current Router II Ideally, there is some way to keep a fleet running even with a modest shortage of Logi pilots. Similarly, ideally there is some way for new or curious pilots to have an opportunity to try the logi role. Osprey fits might fit the bill. Those who know the sites and requirements (and risks) better than I do will have to make those determinations. I'm interested to find out. Thoughts, suggestions and feedback are welcome, -T'vaar Q&A: Q. Wait, aren't those MEDIUM cap transfers on that Osprey? That can't possibly be acceptable. A. Yup, those are mediums. But thanks to the incredible role bonuses on the Osprey hull, it turns out that a Medium "Regard" cap transfer from an Osprey delivers the exact same 324 capacitor as the Large "Regard" cap transfer from a Basilisk. Thus, an Osprey with 2x mediums can merge seamlessly into a Basi cap chain. (Put a Large on an Osprey and it delivers almost 1,000 cap. Fitting 0/5 can be fun). Q. It only has three large reppers - and they're not even T2. How can it possibly out-rep a Basi? A. Again, the amazing hull bonuses on the Osprey work differently than the Basilisk bonuses. Whereas the Basi bonuses make each repper cost less capacitor, the Osprey bonuses make each repper deliver more rep. Therefore, each Large "Murky" repper (meta 1) on an Osprey delivers 975 shield if the Osprey pilot has Caldari Cruiser 5, (900 shield if Caldari Cruiser 4), whereas each T2 repper on the Basi delivers 680 shield. The cycle times are the same, so the Osprey's three reppers can rep 2,925 shield per cycle (2,700 with Caldari Cruiser 4), vs the Basi's 2,720. The Osprey's range is a little better, too. Q. Isn't it expensive for a T1 cruiser? A. Depends how you think about it, I guess. The bulk of the cost is in modules that can be moved to any other ship later on. The committed cost (hull and rigs) isn't so bad. Also, the fitting gurus may find ways to make it less expensive. The above fits are, again, just an illustration of concept. Also, how much is it worth to be able to keep a fleet up and running rather than standing down for lack of Logi?

New members often ask questions like, "What is the best ship I should train for incursions?" and, "Which is more desired, Basilisk or Scimitar?" and other such things. Even experienced pilots sometimes ask questions like, "Why don't we like ship XYZ?" and so on. FCs all have their own styles, and WTM accepts a great many less-than-ideal ships in the spirit of inclusiveness, so FCs almost never get to fly their "ideal" fleets. For all of us who are interested, though, and for all the new pilots who want to do their part to help, I am curious to know what FCs WISH their fleets could be. FC, what is your ideal fleet? When I first joined Warp To Me, I asked one day, and one FC said the following: "My ideal fleet is: 3 Basilisks (Logi 5) for 3 combat caps, 6 Scimitars with 3x tracking links each, 10 Sniper ships (Nightmares and Machariels), The rest Vindicators for damage output." (So, 21 Vindicators.) Since then, the booster functions have changed, so I imagine that last line is now 20 Vindicators plus one Command Ship for fleet boosts, but you get the idea. So, again - FCs, if you could count on all your pilots to bring what you want, what would your ideal fleet look like?

Haha - Skyler beat me to it!

You personally do not have to reach 100k EHP and 70% resists (though we won't object if you can). Your fit, however, should be one that would have 100k EHP and 70% resists if all of your skills were Level 5. So if you stick it in a tool like Pyfa with a skill profile of "all 5" and it meets that standard, then it's good. The fits on the fitting website https://wl.warptome.net/fits/ meet the standard, so if you can fly one of them (and can use all the modules) you're fine to join fleet right away. I also advise everyone to read the bullets on the fitting website. Meta 4 guns are acceptable on a Rokh if you cannot yet use the T2 guns. Some other modules can also be meta 4, though not the tank modules. Tank modules can be upgraded to faction, though, if you are willing to spend the money to overcome problems with skills. Feel free to talk to us in game or in comms. We can probably get you flying much sooner than 5 weeks. See you soon!

I honestly don't know what the channel was called, or whether they meant Elm Street or a different channel. Occasional prodding from the FC would likely help. It seems there are still a number of hurdles, though. Bruce mentioned asking NMs individually "in order till you find one that doesn't have a cap buddy and has the right cap transfer (meta4/T2) for you." I don't know how many private conversations it takes to find a cap buddy that way, but it sounds labor-intensive. The effort required represents some kind of barrier. Also, the fact that different pilots fit different cap transfers is a barrier. Also, the fact that not all pilots have good enough cap skills to make capping worthwhile is a barrier. Even if a pilot is willing to cap buddy and wants to find one, the effort involved in accomplishing it might just be too much. I'm just looking for some way to streamline it. It doesn't have to be a chat channel. For the sake of discussion, though, I could envision a channel that NMs and other relevant snipers join as soon as they join fleet. In that channel, they announce how many cap transfers they have, and what type. Something like: o/ 2x faction, or o/ 1x meta 4, or o/ 0x don't wanna, or o/ 0x bad skillz or whatever, and then that information is posted into an updated MOTD just like the logi channels, so that pilots know right away (a) who is willing, (b) who has compatible equipment, and (c) who does not already have a buddy (assuming MOTD is updated for this). If some kind of system like that is in place, then the FC can just tell pilots to join the forum/channel/whatever-it-is and announce themselves, and doesn't end up repeatedly harassing pilots who don't have the skills or have incompatible equipment or some such. At the same time, we make it easy for pilots to comply ("join and announce" is easy) while retaining their option to refuse to buddy up.

I see. Having never flown a Nightmare, all I know about the channel is that I asked once if it would make sense to make one and was told that one already existed. I never heard about the judgment that it's a terrible idea. The way you describe finding a buddy makes sense. Despite that, there seem to be quite a few people (above) who wish more NMs were capping each other, which suggests something about our status quo is inadequate. If we actually want more NMs to cap than currently do, presumably we have to do something to inspire it. To your point, perhaps the solution is to recommend that NMs who want cap buddies be more forceful about individually asking other NM pilots, rather than asking the whole group in fleet.

Perhaps we can do something to help make it easier for them to take the suggestion. My understanding is that we already have a channel for Nightmares to find cap buddies. We could put a link to that channel in the Fleet MOTD and suggest that Nightmares and other cap-relevant snipers join it. In the channel, the pilots can discuss who has how many cap transfers and what skills they need for them to be effective, and whether to bother capping or not with the skills and partners available. We will still have people who don't join the channel, and we'll still have people in the channel who never buddy up, but making it a higher-profile idea will get new pilots in the habit of thinking about it and learning about it. Making it more of a fleet norm might inspire greater compliance, even if we're perfectly accepting of pilots who elect not to.

I agree the problem is more about pilot behavior than fitting. If we're serious about getting snipers to partner up, it might be enough to just institutionalize the expectation a bit. For instance, Basi pilots are expected to cap chain. New pilots are taught how to do it, the concept is explained to them, a chat channel is created that they are required to join, and there's an official role (LC) to oversee management and status of the cap chain. We could do the same for Snipers. We could teach new sniper pilots how to do it, explain the concept to them, create a chat channel that they are expected to join (SniperCap?), and create a role (Sniper Commander?) for assigning cap buddies and monitoring cap status (unless we'd rather leave it as another unsung hero like the role of "person who updates Scimi Links chat"). These aren't especially challenging steps to take, and once they're instituted, the momentum and inertia will maintain the practice. Eventually it could just be accepted that "this is just how things are done."

Public Service Announcement - The original Starcraft / Brood War has been remastered and is now available for free. https://starcraft.com/en-us/

My suspicion is that everything after Spudzy's "lol rip real answer to the question" was genuine.

Given the planet's magnetic field, could you give yourself a boost by carrying a battery, wrapping yourself in wire, and flipping the switch as you start your descent? Thereby launching yourself through the planet-cannon?

I was recently dusting off my thoughts on this and on Logi training for new pilots, and was reminded that another LM had contributed a fit that used active hardeners for specific damage types instead of adaptives in an attempt to achieve an adequate tank at a lesser cost. This configuration yields a similar EM/Thermal tank as the Pith-C 0/5 version cited in the quote, but is far less expensive. In terms of tank, this Osprey 0/5 version has similar tank to an Optimal Basi as far as EM and Thermal go. The Explosive tank is slightly higher (same resist but higher raw shield HP), but there is a Kinetic hole relative to the Basi (and versus the Pith-C version cited in the quote). This particular version of the tank is somewhat mid-grade to keep costs down. If more tank is desired, the A-type EM and Thermal hardeners could be upgraded to X-types, and the LSE could be upgraded to a more expensive one. Similarly, if the cost is too high and the tank is greater than necessary, some modules could be downgraded to save some money. Some of the faction modules could be downgraded to T2, and/or the CDFEs could be downgraded to T1. [Osprey 0/5 - Specific Resists] Damage Control II Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System Pith A-Type EM Ward Field Pith A-Type Thermal Dissipation Field Pithum A-Type EM Ward Amplifier Large 'Sheriff' Shield Extender 10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Osprey fits of this nature are extremely accessible in terms of fitting needs and skills (nearly ANY pilot will be cap stable with 2x incoming cap transfers, thereby adding a net +3 combat caps to fleet). Thus, if one of the tank configurations is deemed to be resilient enough, this kind of ship could be used during those "late night fleet" opportunities as either training vehicles or as a means of keeping the fleet flying despite a lack of full-fledged Logi pilots to provide combat caps.

Cool. Thanks for the info. The fit I posted originally does not require implants (the VERY original did not require Cruiser 5), but presumably was not able to tank enough. Thank you to the LM team for doing the fitting exercise. I'm interested to learn the specific fitting issues and requirements and improving in this area.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. For the record, I am not trying to push Ospreys into fleets. I enjoy the R&D process, and it occurred to me that Ospreys might address some situations we face sometimes. If they ultimately don't work for whatever reason, I can accept that. I am new to the community and am unaware of old, long-buried controversies. The conversations I DID have with current LMs on this matter gave no hint that it had ever been seriously considered before. Rather, the responses I got were more ones of surprise, such as, "That's even POSSIBLE?!? Holy cow. That's interesting." I appreciate that the community is thinking (has thought?) about the idea conscientiously rather than just discarding out of hand. For the record, I was not envisioning a world where we allow people to X-up with Ospreys. Rather, I was thinking we might have one or two stand-by Ospreys pre-fitted and available for FCs to use at their own discretion. If FCs have the ability to successfully cope with a variety of non-standard Logi situations (no combat caps, under-Logied, etc) and run sites anyway, then they can likely also cope with having an irregular Logi ship in fleet. They would be free, of course, to decide not to do so. The opportunity I thought I saw was that we might be able to give them the option to decide TO do so if they wished. For instance, I thought if an FC has access to a stand-by Osprey and wants more Logi, but is short of Logi pilots, perhaps s/he knows of one or two battleship pilots that s/he'd trust to run the Osprey properly. If s/he does (and that pilot is willing), then great. If s/he doesn't, or doesn't want to be bothered, or for any other reason, s/he could simply choose not to. Similarly, if it's close to down-time and the fleet is flying fine but only has 35 people in it, perhaps the FC would be willing to let an aspiring Logi pilot fly an Osprey as the 36th person, to build experience and learn the sites. Then again, perhaps not. FC discretion. Regarding pilot competency, there are plenty of reasons a competent pilot might be available but a Basi/Scimi is not. (a) Perhaps a Basi pilot's Basi was destroyed in the last Mom site and hasn't been replaced yet. (b) Perhaps a pilot flies Logi on his main, but runs incursions in a battleship alt. (c) Perhaps a pilot flies T1 Logi in null fleets but hasn't trained or hasn't completed Logistics prereqs yet. (d) Perhaps a Logi pilot hasn't finished moving all his/her ships to the current site. In any event, the basic question I was trying to address is "could an Osprey be fitted such that it can be safe and functional enough to function on a one-off basis in some or all of the situations we care about?" Perhaps only for Assaults. This was mostly a fitting question in my mind, and I needed people who have expertise with the site requirements to answer it, because I personally do not. Two other important questions are: 1. Do we have confidence that acceptable pilots would end up flying the irregular unit? 2. Culturally, do we or do we not want to allow FCs the discretion to field the irregular unit? If any of these answers is "no," then clearly we shouldn't field them. A side question is: Are there circumstances where we'd be willing to use them as training vehicles for aspiring Logi pilots? Again, I am not an Osprey salesman, and am fine with a "we're not interested" conclusion. I enjoy the theoretical discussion, and I appreciate the consideration this has been given. -T'vaar