Anatomy of Design : Phoenix

A Look Under the Hood

By: George Argyropoulos

a/k/a Dragon_Bane   

It's been a while since I've done an actual Anatomy of Design article. Part of the reason was the roller coaster ride of the Monolith, part of it is this silliness of an escalation weapon and special. No, I'm not a fan. Maybe more on that later, we'll see how I feel by the end of this.

So we finally have the Phoenix, the Gutspill's Phoenix and all the escalation mess released.

<sarcasm font> 
Goodie!!
</sarcasm font>

Now we can finally begin...

9/14/17 Edit : At the end of the article, I have an early raid video of this fleet doing the 106 target!

DPS Build : 

You can build the Gutspill's as either a DPS configuration or an Anti configuration. Personally, I went with mine as a DPS in case something unforeseen happens and I lose my lead ship.

1. Weapons : 

I chose the Manus as my weapon of choice for the 'final' build because of a few things. My fleet is fast enough that I can kite anything in the targets we've seen, so that larger one shot damage is a boon with the damn drones. Additionally, since the missiles don't actually batch-fire all together evenly, there are 'gaps' between the missiles fired from the different positions on the ships (See AoD : Apollo for a good example). If the mechanic is working properly, because of this 'layered' firing pattern, you can get the critical hit bonus from within the same group of missiles fired.

An additional consideration was that bitter son-of-a-bitch in the 103's - Rudolph the red-nosed hulk. Apparently having had enough of being picked on in his youth, it seems our dear friend Rudolph contacted Carrot-Top for a 'Roid hook-up and has now turned into the jacked schoolyard bully waiting to take your lunch money and shove your head in the toilet.

Having the Manus on these hulls, and in this amount, should bring Rudolph to his knees more quickly than with the Talons. Since it is a target wherein the longer you are engaged the likelier it is that you will take damage, it makes sense to want to kill this son-of-a-bitch as fast as possible.

In order to fit everything, one of the weapons remains a Talon missile, however, I am not convinced you need all that charged armor on this fleet, particularly given it's ability to kite. If you forgo the second 'set' of armor, you can fit every slot as a Manus.

2. Specials :

Funnily enough, my specials have not changed since my original article from the Phoenix preview in June. Even then people were not thrilled with my choices and I understand this may be a little 'off' from builds that you've seen, but let me go through the specials and I'll comment on each.

Agility System 4 : For both the evade and stun resistance. This one is a universal given.

Carbon Fiber Casing : Clearly for the reload and damage. The reload is particularly helpful with the Manus. This special is also a universal given.

Reactive Armor 3 : Most of the drone damage at distance is penetrative in nature. This is a little bit of a toss up with the new Alloy Armor CoM. If I had tokens, I might experiment, but, since the weight change isn't enough to afford me another Manus with both sets of charged armor, I don't see the need to refit this out at this time.

Magnus Drive 2 : This is the first one that people looked askance at me for, but I think now that people have seen the benefit of the additional speed, it is, in my mind, still the clear choice. It allows you to kite and maneuver far better than SS5 because of the distance you can keep between yourself and the enemy.

Siege Battery 3 : Yes, I know Garrison Battery is a quicker build, however, in this build, overall, SB3 makes for a lighter fit. This is due to the hefty weight of the Manus. It also helps out with a tad more building damage than GB, but it does have a slightly lower Turret Defense than GB. That said, given the targets, I believe that a stronger offense weighs more heavily than the paltry .5% difference in Turret Defense.

Guided Missile System : This is the one that I keep getting questioned on. In the early days people were insisting on Counter-Missile Extender. The problem I had with that choice was that at rank, it only increased your reload on the Talon by .05 seconds while giving up on a hefty amount of accuracy. Even with the Manus, it is only a .09 second increase.

The next one to look at would be the new special that came out with the Manus, Advanced Optical Tracking. While the projectile speed is nice, given the agility and speed of the fleet, I don't feel like it is even an issue. The 1.91% higher accuracy boost for the GMS, even though it sounds tiny, is what wins me. Still. Having seen how much difference a mere 5% makes in the game, and playing with the numbers from this article, I think that the better bet is still GMS, particularly as it saves me refitting a slot.


Anti Build : 

I only have one ship in the entire fleet built like this. There are only a few changes from the DPS build.

The Countermeasures : Duh. I have one Gail 3 on here for the cheese balls, and I still drive to avoid them, so 1 seemed enough for me. The Phalanx 4 and Phalanx 3. Given how few missiles we see in these targets, the Phalanx 4 should be enough on it's own, but 'just in case' I threw a Phal3 in there as back-up. Because of the range disparity the Phal3 should (hopefully) never fire. Using the Phal3 as the back-up allows me to also squeeze my missile load out on this hull so that I have four Manus on it rather than one.

The Special : Frontline Countermeasure System. Why this instead of shuffling out GMS for CME? Because the drones. Because Rudolph the Juiced up Hulk. I'm not too worried about building damage, but I am worried about accuracy. This affords me to keep my GMS and still boost my countermeasures.

That's it! The design and thought process behind it. Huggy fleet build link here. As always, hope it helps!! Now... to rant or not to rant... yea, I think so. It's an issue that has not reached a critical mass and hopefully this gets some eyes on it early before it becomes problematic.

-----------

<rant mode>

So, here's the underlying issue that doesn't seem to be getting discussed much yet anywhere but in comms and after-shows where players like to pop in and vent their frustrations. (Really, you guys should come on the open mic shows and not just the after-shows!!)

The escalation thing is already old. Let's be honest - we have a basic escalation item immediately or soon after release of the new meta hull, namely, the bloody flagship. I've touched briefly upon that issue in this article, but I don't know if this particular pink elephant is even acknowledged as yet.

In order to perform in any sort of acceptable capacity in each raid set, you need the flagship. Note, I did not say 'want'. My 'want' is acceptable performance in a raid set. That want necessitates a flagship.

The other issue of this escalation 'idea' is this: Kixeye designs these targets already knowing what the end resultant power of the fleet will be. Kixeye has stated that with regard to the targets, over the course of the 3 month raid cycle, they will "tune them up a little bit". If you want the 'easiest', or most cost-effective build for a raid, guess what? You're refitting.

Let's break this down a little so we have a frame of reference:

Month 1;
The month previous to the start of the raid set:
- You get the hull, weapon and special - typically locked behind other prizes.
-  At some point, the 'secondary' hull is released.
- Scramble to build ships for the first raid of the set.

Month 2;

The first month of the new raid set:

- You get to chase after the Flagship of your choice while scooting for the actual prize of the raid.

- You scramble to get as much of your dedicated fleet out and ready for the next raid.

- Escalation #1.

- Scramble to build the first escalation introduction (flagship) to your raid fleet. (Have you even finished the rest of the fleet yet?)

Month 3;

The second month of the raid set:

- The first month you may actually have your full fleet built and ready... maybe.

- Immediately after the raid, and your possibly -just- completed fleet, 'escalation' weapons and specials are released. Srsly guise?!?

- Escalation #2

-Scramble to refit your fleet to the now escalated optimal build... you know... 'just in case'.

Month 4;

The last month of the raid set:

- You're scrambling, again, to have your fleet ready for the raid. Wait, wut??? Again? It's only a 3 month raid set! Why are we refitting for the last raid? I thought that they didn't tune to the escalation... yea, I can't even finish that sentence. Of course they are 'tuned' around the final power level of the fleet. You can't program a target in a vacuum, and foreknowledge is prejudicial in any decision making. 

You'd think that if it really wasn't necessary to refit to the escalation weapons, Kixeye would just skip this silliness and pump out some more fun PvP content, or -gasp- let people get some PvP stuff out. My conjecture is this: Why would work product be produced if it is of little to no value in the game? Logic.

I would really, really, REALLY like to see this idea killed off. Actually, I'd like to see both ideas killed off, or adjusted heavily. The escalation weapons and specials, if anything, need to be introduced much earlier in the raid set, if not removed altogether.

The flagship... I just do not understand the hefty premium we are paying to  build these. The idea behind the premium cost of flagships was because of their generic boosts to anything in the fleet. Their versatility as well as their buffs. The flagships of today carry the premium costs of past flagships, but are niche and exceptionally narrow in their boost ability, generally limiting that boost to only the same family of hulls and for a certain particular purpose. Can I see 2 or 3 days added overall for something so specific in nature? Sure. 9 days? No.

The promise to conjoin reduced build times with the advent of the 3 month raid cycles has never been realized, and this 'escalation' idea is a part of it. I think if we look back and compare overall build times in toto, we will see that we are now spending more time overall on raid fleets for a shorter raid set duration. This is a very troubling trend and I hope someone takes a look at this before it becomes a more serious issue.

</rant mode>


Raid 106 Target - I am still only running one of each of the charged armors:

Breaking down the 113... Again?

How the %$#& do you kill those bloody Coldsnaps?!?

By: George Argyropoulos

a/k/a Dragon_Bane   

Back in June, I wrote an article on the 113 FM target. It was an article that walked through the 113 to familiarize people with it as well as show some successful builds.

Since then, I have see many people state that the targets have changed, it's impossible without top fleets, and worst of all... no one is showing us how to do them.

Srsly?

Ok, so this time, rather than discuss builds that have been discussed ad nauseum, I'm going to offer a full hand-holding walk-through to take everyone through the 113 and spill the secret to the turret cluster on the left of the gate. Ready?

This was my first attempt at explaining this to someone. It grew from here.

That led to more question which led to this video...

That is the video I take the stills from. I understand some people like the video, and some like the articles, so, who am I to tell you what to do?

First thing is the stack. I know a lot of people don't like doing this, and you don't have to, but I'm a lazy ass pirate, and I appreciate it when you can just stack you fleet and get down to business...

The next is a cool little tidbit of information. When these first came out, I sometimes half killed the closest turrets and then had to stack off and hit the back three. This little tidbit saves you from doing all that.

The next few stills should be self-explanatory. I don't know that anyone had questions with regard to this back side, but here are some of the stills for the back end...

Now we get to the goods. The damn mother%$#&ing coldsnap to the left of the damn gate. Am I right? Well, here it is, step by step.

First, you want to identify the little triangle that is sitting behind the Torpedo Tower:

Once you identify it, you want to come in perpendicular to the right corner of the triangle.

So, now you have your fleet up against the wall. You want to select just your Zelos and start it to turn to the right towards the cluster of turrets. Once it has started to turn, stop it by hitting the down arrow.

At this point, you want it to look like this and then click just behind the Zelos so it attempts a 180° turn. This makes he Zelos 'creep' forward and doing this with the use of the down button you can move pixels at a time so you can hit the turrets without activating the Coldsnap.

Then the cluster to the other side is handled just like the others - target the furthest one out.

Then you can go inside and have some fun with musical mortars. You can set off to the side, target the building that controls the shrouding, and let mortars rain down upon your enemies. They will kill as much as possible from the inside. Kill the torpedo tower, and then head outside to kill the last cluster.

From the outside you can smash the last turret cluster.

And there you have it. Hope this helps some peeps get better in the 113's!!

Bounty

A Pirate's Assessment

by: George Argyropoulos

a/k/a Dragon_Bane   

What do we say to the Bounty event? I think everyone (on both sides) is glad to see the end of this one. As I have repeatedly stated, I love the idea and see a lot of potential, however, we have yet to reach either the potential or ( at least in my mind) the full fruition of the idea.

Let me preface by saying this - I got enough to get everything I wanted, and I used a lowly Pride fleet. Particularly after the points adjustments, this was doable for many that enjoy PvP. Were there issues? Yes. Was it fun? Mostly. BUT... Human nature tends to focus on the negative rather than the positive, which is partly what I'm going to do, but I do this not as a 'bash' but to illustrate the issues or concerns that have been shared with me in the hopes that they will be addressed in the next Bounty event. Seriously, the headings are going to sound awful, and some of the stuff will as well, however, please remember that these are issues that players have expressed to me, and repeatedly, in order to show up here and are their perceptions and reality. This doesn't necessarily make them right, but these are many of the issues the community has had, and they need to be addressed for the next Bounty to succeed.

So, these all can be seen several ways, and I certainly can see most of both, but the problem is not whether I can see both sides, but what the community feels. Perception is a person's reality. Whether I, this group, or that group see the color Orange, the color blind person sees it as Yellow, and that is their reality... so everyone take all of this in context, please. I won't argue both sides for the most part as I am merely expressing those views that were shared and heavily repeated with me.

Underhandedness :

Underhandedness is the first and most prolific complaint I received. In all honesty, I can make an argument for every one of these that I received, from either side of the line, but i digress... I've cut this down to two as these two issues were viewed as the most egregious and really set a tone in the community that was detrimental to everything else and colored the rest of the issues and event.

First on everyone's list is, of course, the Opt In button on the launch ship screen where the 'launch ship' button is. this was annoying, and after the first day, I believe, there was a splash screen to help prevent an accidental entry. Given how fast we click and muscle memory, I doubt that would stop many. I know that's how I got into Bounty before I had even decided, and I could swear I didn't have a splash screen after I clicked. I could be wrong.

Second on this list, and the more insidious one according to many, was blocking the use of the structure repair tokens to repair your dock. This issue was exacerbated by responses like this from CS leading many to believe it was an error that was corrected:

As time progressed, it became clear this was done intentionally. This is probably the only one on the list that I can't come up with a solid alternative reason. Even if it was a purely business decision, the fact that it was not expressed to the community before the start of the event, particularly since they had their own live show, makes this one rankle for the majority of players, and is a good segue into...

Clarity :

The whole Secured / Unsecured mechanic would be the next thing. I know that BP Professor, Jefe and I expressed concern about this early, and Jefe and I asked during the live show Kixeye did, but never got a reply. Personally, I think that this is a fish bowl dilemma wherein they, having worked on the thing closely, thought the answer was obvious and didn't want to waste their time on it and we, looking in, really were asking a legitimate question. Unfortunately, as the TFC show earlier that night had illustrated, it was anything but obvious to the community.

We also had a lot of confusion with regard to a successful defense during Bounty. While Laredo pointed out that there was nowhere in the overview that expressly stated that you would gain bounty for a successful defense, there also was nowhere in the overview wherein it was expressly stated that there would NOT be bounty won from a successful defense. Given that the other PvP interaction we have with regard to bases is the Medal system, you can easily see why players presumed that a defensive win would yield them something. Given how easy it is to exploit that however, it is also clear as to why this was not implemented in Bounty.

BUGS!!

This topic, by far, was the biggest cause of complaints over the weekend. Even trying to get a simple list together in this post blew the hell up. The combination of the bugs concurrent with the silence we heard over the weekend was the single most frustrating thing reported to me about the event. I had started that thread on TFC to gather some more information but people were so incensed that the thread blew up entirely. That post is indicative of a great many things if one wanted to read through it and analyze it. The top bugs I have had reported were:

1. Prideful being permanently lost after a stun.
2. Losing 20 bounty for just engaging a base.
3. Bounty generation not accurate or consistent.
4. Guard fleet outside a base doesn't show on the map, nor did the 'shield' of the guard.
5. Getting incorrect, or NO bounty, from a base that showed bounty available.
6. Gate/trap blocking your ability to drive into a base.

These were the top bugs that kept coming up. While we should expect bugs in a new conceptual endeavor, the silence from the company over the weekend made these far worse than had there been open communication. I'm not entirely sure for the reasoning, but I hope that these, as well as the cold shoulder we got over the weekend, are looked at very carefully and addressed before Bounty #2.

Mechanics : 

Some of the mechanics were clear-cut, some... I struggled with. The idea of shortened bubble times I could follow, however, without counterbalancing the ability to keep your base flat, I'm not sure that the bubble times make much sense. Additionally, with as many people that used a clicking macro (which is NOT allowed by TOS) to stay logged into the game and not force a refresh so their base would begin to repair, this idea needs another look to see if it can be balanced in some way. Those using the clicking macro... 'annoyed' me. Hopefully Kix can come up with something that can sniff that out.

Other things like getting nothing for a successful base defense... while I understand that this mechanic can be exploited, something like a small 'ante' fee (20-50 Bounty) could be added to the secured total of the defender. Could this still be exploited? Of course, and very easily given another of the mechanics in the Bounty, but I'm not here to teach you guys how to break the game... I'm just saying that it should be something to look at before Bounty #2.

Of particular note that I have to give a shout out about... the concurrent repair queues. Yes, repair was problematic, but it was a cool feature. I'd like to see more of it. Wait, that's positive. That's for later... ummm... oh!

The Locator. Yes most of the time mine was blank or was showing me my own alliance members or my sister alliance. I know Kix is already looking into this but I would just like to add my preference: I'd love to see a randomized locator that used the entirety of the world you were in to generate targets. Will this be bulky? I'm not sure, but it would make me giddy.

Flat bases. I think this exploit was pretty clear. Between hitting a gaggle of flat bases and losing 20 Bounty each time just for the privilege of seeing a dead base... well, I think it's pretty clear how everyone feels about that.

The whole secured / unsecured thing and being able to club baby seals. This one is tough. It was clearly implemented to help with the flow of the currency, however, it does need another look. Perhaps if the attacker is higher in overall bounty, they still get the 20% but the baby seal only loses 5% and maybe gets a little longer of a bubble. This would help keep the baby seals' currency longer, help generate more currency for overall currency flow in the game and would still allow targets to populate regularly so players felt engaged.

Bandit Bases :

Honestly, I'm torn about these. While they did help to get me to a secured state one day, I'm not sure a PvE target has a place in a PvP competition. On the other hand, it does offer some semblance of participation for those that do not have any viable PvP fleet(s). Perhaps a limit to how many you could hit, or a block after you hit the middle checkpoint? I'm not sure, but I certainly don't think these should be available enough for people to get 10k in points, unless the prizes again include defensive options. Other than my own qualms, I have to be honest and say that I did not get a single complaint about these targets.


Bounty Uncertainty :

The amount of Bounty that was showing was generally close-ish to accurate, however, in order to get an accurate number you needed to do the 'Base Shuffle'. This was again an important item to note during redemption. Cue segue...

Redemption Issues : 

Again we ran into the instability with the Bounty total and displays. What was worse is that when you first claimed something, you could use whatever was displayed rather than the 'correct' amount. I am still unsure why this issue was happening, but again, I hope that it gets looked at very closely before Bounty #2.

Overall Impression : 

Just like PvP, it certainly wasn't for everyone, however, given the prizes and the implications of those prizes, it is clear to see why many considered this another raid and required participation. I would like to see this event again, however, next time with the prizes geared strictly to offensive PvP. Defender turrets and hulls really have implications in the passive realm of the game rather than being something just for aggressors in PvP. It is a distinction that should be acknowledged before endevouring down this path again.

That timer on the outside of the bases. Awesome. I want to see that implemented in the game itself. Can it be taken advantage of? Of course,but I'd like to see a live test for a week or two and see how the community feels after that.

The passive generation of Bounty is a great idea. Perhaps it can be balanced in such a way that it would work while in a bubble or some other way so that flat bases can't be exploited again. Though I struggle with how since I can see a way to exploit either path taken here.

The fact that the Kix live show hit over 20k means that many players were interested in this. In all honesty, if they run another, I may be tempted to join in again - this time on purpose.

Let's be honest, the event was full of issues that were compounded by the fact that Kix refused to break their silence - directly or indirectly, until after the weekend. That does not engender and good will with the community. Particularly this one. If they had been visible and accessible during the event, I think that the bugs and issues would have been far less frustrating and annoying. That said...

I actually enjoyed it for the most part. I liked hitting bases, and even though I was relegated to the one Pride fleet that I have built (that was glitched during the event) I had several bases to try (and die in) as well as having my base hit. Perhaps rather than changing the bubbles, they should lengthen the event time. I don't know. This thing is so complex that to come up with viable solutions would require more information than I have access to currently. Additionally, given the current state of the game with regard to chores (or the time sink factor), I don't know how well received this event would be if it were made into a monthly event. As I've said many times, I think this has great potential. The catch is if the company is willing to invest the time into it to slowly see a return rather than trying for an immediate one, and whether this will be implemented in such a way that we get a second monthly 'raid'. Quarterly might be palatable but monthly needs a 'This Warn You' sticker slapped on it.

So, final words: Fantastic concept, rocky start, a lot of potential, take care in final implementation.

-----------

Oh... and if any of this seems a little loopy, I may or may not have been loopy myself with a fever induced delirium whilst writing part, or all of this and refusing to take my medicine so I could 'think clearly'. I think it's time for my chicken noodle soup... Good night everyone.

Let's Talk Updates - FM, Retro and VXP

A Step in the Right Direction

by: George Argyropoulos

a/k/a Dragon_Bane   

This week brought us the ever-dreaded after-raid update. I say that purely based on the ever-expected complaints that invariably arise from the community when they see new items added to the FM which many say are there to 'block' tokens. I'm going to touch on that for a moment before we delve into some of what we saw.

"Blocked Tokens":

The argument that tokens are 'blocked' every time after a raid is flawed, at best. The reason why is that this is the typical modus operandi, and has been for some time. Calling for a change to this methodology is equivalent to calling for tokens to be re-worked. If they were to listen to this complaint and act on it by reducing the amount of tech released in the FM, we would invariably lose tokens because they would have to adjust our aggregate earnings to maintain whatever balance they have calculated for those tokens per monthly cycle. When folks want to bring forth an issue, they have to also understand the repercussions of what they ask, and I think in this instance, people aren't thinking that far ahead.

That said, I do think there is an issue... with the earning tree in particular, when they release items that have an impact on the current raid set. In those instances, I really would love to see the items that are relevant to the current raid cycle to be placed at the top of the tree rather than the bottom of it. Particularly for items that are meant for the 'second' tier option in that raid set.

Prize Pool Reductions:

HUZZAH!!! Yes, I have been pushing for this (in part) for months. The underlying issue with a huge prize pool in tiers 4 and 5 is that the availability of tokens is a complete game-changer for players. I can not stress enough how much those tokens change your game. Build times are not scaled to base level or tech-depth so anyone that is 'caught up' has a distinct advantage over other players, and as such, the gap between these players' potential ability is widened even further. This is a very, very good step in the right direction.

Personally, I have heartily advocated for a huge reduction in both tiers, even more so than what we have seen, but I wanted the tech to drop down levels. As we have seen time and again, tech-depth allows for far better adaptability in the game. I absolutely would not be opposed to seeing tech drop down each month when the new tech is introduced. This would allow lower level players access to the tech a little later than those 'caught up' (giving the latter a month advantage), would keep the upper levels a little clearer, and honestly, if you want to motivate players to reach for tier 5, I would think a short list in that tier with a longer one in tier 4 would be better motivation. Given the (purposeful) re-balance of the 88 in the FM, Kixeye has given every player the option and ability to grind to Tier 5 if they are willing to put in the time, AND if they concentrate on their priorities, the FM would get easier and easier each week and less and less of a grind.

For reference, this is how easy doing the 'new' 88's are and this, while old, is still a pretty fair article on what priorities in the game should be.

VXP Weekend:

Yes, we all flipped our collective shits about VXP day last month. We got our VXP Day-and-a-half back. They do, in fact, pay attention. Just please, articulate your concerns instead of just flipping out. No one, including Kixeye, is going to sincerely listen to a complaint or criticism that does not keep the option for discussion open in some way.

Keep an eye out for tips and tricks on the various pages for maximizing your VXP in each target. I do want to stress a very important point however... If you are going to coin (particularly for a raid fleet) or put in a lot of seat-time, VXP Weekend is when you want to do it. Fully ranking a fleet absolutely transforms the fleet. Despite what the blurb states, at skull rank, your reload is not increased by a mere 75%, it is actually increased by 400%. Do NOT discount rank. In this raid set, a full Phoenix fleet performs very differently from half-rank to full-rank. Take full advantage of this opportunity!

Retrofit Lab Additions:

This was a very nice surprise. In fact, it was completely unexpected. When the newer tech came out this year, Kixeye stated that the tech was not going into the Retro lab immediately because they had already designed it to the 'R-15' level. What I think we are seeing here is the actual proper use of the Retro Lab as it was intended - as tech gets a little older and power-creep progresses in the game, useful tech is put into the Retro Lab in order to keep some of the tech relevant. Given the amount of research time inherent in the Retro Lab, I think it is pretty clear that this was done on anticipation to the release later this year of OP 10. There are some very useful additions in the list and given the current flavor of PvP there may be a few gems in the list. Here is the full list:

Group	Name	tier	Affecting stats
Munition Systems	Armor Piercing Shells	t4	Ballistic Damage
Munition Systems	Seismic Rounds	t5	Ballistic Damage
Munition Systems	Drum Reloaders	t5	Ballistic Damage
Munition Systems	Cannon System IV	t5	Ballistic Damage
Corrosive Modifications	Compressed Corrosion Canisters	t5	Corrosive Damage
Corrosive Modifications	Narrowed Firing Aperture	t6	Corrosive Damage
Corrosive Modifications	Hydroxide Injector	t5	Corrosive Damage
Mortar Systems	Enervated Explosives	t6	Spread
Mortar Systems	Precision Napalm Detonator	t6	Fire Field
Mortar Systems	Delta-V Mortar Focus	t6	Projectile Speed
Mortar Systems	Trajectory Plotter	t5	Projectile Speed
Radioactive Systems	Viscosity Regulator	t5	Radioactive Damage, Radioactive accuracy
Radioactive Systems	Atomic Targeting	t5	Radioactive Damage, Radioactive accuracy
Rocket Load Systems	Expanded Fulmination Payload	t6	Rocket Reload
Rocket Load Systems	Compressed Exhaust Vent	t5	Rocket Reload
Multi Barrel Systems	Blight Acid Clusters	t6	Scatter Gun Reload
CM Alloy Strengthening	alloy panels cm	t5	Ballistic defense, penetrating defense
XM Alloy Strengthening	alloy panels xm	t5	Explosive defense, Penetrating defense
MR Alloy Strengthening	alloy panels mr	t5	Radioactive defense, Penetrating defense
CoM Alloy Strengthening	alloy panels com	t5	Corrosive defense, Penetrating defense

The only irk I have in all of that is things like Alloy Armor CoM, after retrofitting it, only the Penetrative resistance is increased. There are many prints like this that need a little updating to take into consideration the newer damage types etc.

New FM Prizes:

Ok, I have heard from enough of you to know that I am not the only one that is not particularly happy with the 'escalation' weapons. That said, what I do like is that these are not exactly game-changers for your Raid fleet. As I said before, I wish they were placed atop the list rather than at the end, but honestly, I would like the whole idea of escalation releases to go away. If they are going to continue to do this, I would really like to see the escalation items to be of minimal importance in the game (i.e. no re-balancing the targets for these weapons, but if someone does spend the time for the minimal gains, they would enjoy a slight easing of damage/time/etc. during the next raid).

I miss PvP, but given the importance of PvE in this game, anytime something like this happens, players will want to refit to the 'best' build. This takes away time from the PvP aspect of the game, which is a little confusing to me since there is a push to try and encourage more PvP in the game, from the token system for many PvP hulls to the upcoming Bounty event. It seems that we are getting mixed signals here.

So, a nice and simple overview for my 'return'. Hopefully real life settles enough so I can get back into a pleasant even keel and get some writing in for you guys. Thanks for reading!