Talk:Level 4 mission ship fits

Proposed changes

After some discussion on our IRC channel, YARR has devised a rough plan the future of fitting guides:

This page would see a complete overhaul and become a guide to the basics of fitting for level 4 missions. New pages for the fittings of specific ships will be added, and linked both from this page as well as the item database entry. i.e, lvl 4 mission fit guide -> Raven (Fitting guide) <- Raven (raven idb page)

The sheer quantity of possible fittings makes it unreasonable to place all of this information on one page. There is too much material to read, and not enough room for ships with different load outs. We have determined that this page is better suited as a general guide than the ultimate source of information for every single ship capable of running missions.

We discussed placing fits on the item's Database page, but as evidenced in ship fit forums, this information can take up a lot of space. Each ship can have potentially dozens of fits, all of which could be valid in certain situations. If too much information was present on the page (ie, a dozen fits for the Raven), it would be prohibitive towards its purpose to inform.

By providing a fittings page for each ship, players gain the freedom to add their own fits without having to remove or modify other fits in order to have theirs displayed. These fittings will be moderated to prevent the addition of not useful or poor setups (IE, laser Ferox).

A new category of Ship Fittings will be added to aid navigation.

We'll be working out the details and implementing these changes in the near future. For now, feel free to discuss these potential changes and provide feedback. --ISD Salpsan 10:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC) and ISD Othismos 10:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like it if you could leave the page as is. If not add in a few formatting dealios to clean it up. Then when the time comes to link the page to the fitting pages. You make a notation-link to the pages in the article underneath the appropriate ship.

This page can't really be left as it is, for the reasons discussed above. It is too long and tries to do too many things. Disagreements about the setups are what have caused this flame war, and these changes aim to deal with it; there are multiple possible fittings which are valid in different situations. This page needs to become a general reference guide to prevent redundancy and confusion. ISD Othismos 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The fitting pages should have a voting-comment area just as battleclinic has in play. That way good setups are near to the top of the page and bad ones are somewhere not so visible.--Jason Edwards 10:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but that's basically the function of the discussion page. Use that space to talk about which ones are best, what the page order should be, and all that stuff. Herschel Yamamoto 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also could I have the ability to edit the page in order to further improve the page. I still didn't complete everything. My next step afterwards was to give a rough estimate of the total cost of each of the ship fits.--Jason Edwards 10:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Figure it out, save it on your computer(or put it in here), and add it to the new pages when they're ready. Herschel Yamamoto 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Placing new content would be best on the new pages. The chief reason for doing this is to create room for more than one kind of setup per ship. In addition, we don't really have the ability to give one person the power to edit any particular locked page, I'm afraid. ISD Othismos 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this solution. Makes the whole thing work a lot better, without getting into as many edit wars. You need our help implementing it? Herschel Yamamoto 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent place to spear misinformation

You can be eighter right or wrong here. Those who makes real authentic fittings here will get flamed by those who knows it and says its wrong and those who makes wrong fittings just for "luls" will get counter flamed. Oh the joy of EVE :D--Kuolematon 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO this page should not exist. This page has an official sounding name, but is nothing more than the opinions of a player who has taken it upon himself to write this page. Fittings are largely a matter of opinion and personal preference. It is impossible to reflect this in the article. Moreover, what if everybody took it upon themselves to make pages like this? Evelopedia would be flooded by articles like this one which would drown out legitimate articles. There is actually a good place for people to do this - either in the forums or in their own name space (which they can link from the forums) Sandy Brown 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is an invaluable resource for new players looking to run level 4 missions. Because someone might disagree on the specifics the whole article shouldn't exist...? The setupts listed in the article are the "cookie cutter" fittings. They work. If you want to do your own setup, fine... but if you're a newer player, and you have no idea how to fit your ship, this is a great tool. Also, this page will be much easier to keep up-to-date than forums or one of the other common ways to find fittings. It's possible the article could be improved upon. But that's the cool thing about wikis... don't like it - improve it. --Kushan 10:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because people will not agree that there should not be pages like this! This page will always be opinion because there is no consensus as to what constitutes the standard setup (even for cookie cutter setups). People can try to improve it (whatever that means) but this will just result in edit wars. Sandy Brown 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More important than the 'what' is teaching players the 'why' of fitting. And in that regard this page is failing miserably. So, IMO, without good explanations this page serves no purpose. --Rakshasa Taisab 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Intention good, but not well executed

Me thinks this information can be better organized First, all races on one page is not necessary. Second, the feasibility of some the setups can be questioned as well, but this will work itself out hopefully.

Me thinks a better approach would be to give each race their own page, or even each ship their own page. listing first a fitting that 1. Is possible to fit for pilots with lower SP 2. Corresponds with recommended Certificates 3. should be affordable as well, so no faction and T2.

Also there should be a short comment about the setup and how to use it the best way.

From this beginner setup, 2-3 improvements could be recommended as to give an clue about what is good way to improve on such a setup.

After that more advanced and expensive setups can be added, however the most interesting here would be more or less distinctive variations, for example a Dominix with sentry drones. And the 4 billion isk über-setup is generally not so interesting.

I originally didn't put much effort into formatting because I was working out the fits and just get everything linked and looking good. On top of getting mission specific hardeners going well... which crashed and burned. The final setup was going to look at entry zones. Low skill-low cost vs low skill-high cost vs high skill-medium cost. Krystal came and gave the current formatting. Too which I cant go and destroy, because tbh it isnt that bad. Also if you disagree with 1 or more of the fits. You can discuss it here in talk or simply goto the item database for the ship and post the fit there. Also Remember to Sign your stuff :) --Jason Edwards 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Level 4 Mission Ship fits better? abbreviations is ok but for new players they are confusing. is there any section with guidelines for such things yet?

In the context of missions... I dont understand how L4 could be confusing or misunderstood for something else... if one of those ISD people want... they can change the article's name if they want.--Jason Edwards 04:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note at head of page

The note at the head of the page reads: Please note: This page is the opinion of the authors. It represents what are the best and most popular setups for the following ships.
It is not clear why they are these the best setups, nor is it clear that these are the most popular setups. Sandy Brown 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya I put the note there saved and then I was going to edit in some "example tables" detailing the understanding of the fits; but I lost power in my house because of the weather and when it came back on. I wasnt able to edit the page until it was approved. Then the power went out again. So I went to sleep.--Jason Edwards 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

STOP. I have to go through all these fits now because the inept person -Herschel Yamamoto- doesn't know that faction mods are actually better then tech 2.

-Tech 2 weapons take too long to train; while faction or meta 4 outperform tech 2 for very low cost.--Jason Edwards 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock this page to where I have to accept any changes to my page? Not this ISD people who just accept it and not actually look at the setups?--Jason Edwards 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki, and as such, the purpose is constructive collaboration between users. While I recognize your feel a personal attachment to articles you have created, once you put them here, they're in the public domain. If you want your articles to be untouched, put them on a personal website. However, if there is a dispute, consensus should be reached on the talk page before making the edits. Edit wars serve no purpose. As for ISD members approving things - it's not our job to ensure the 100% accuracy of every edit submitted. Particularly in a situation like this, when fits can come down to personal preference... I can't know what you want in this article. Blatantly false edits won't be allowed, but every ISD member doesn't know everything about everything, and at some point they will have to assume good faith and approve the edit if they can't see anything wrong with it. Ideally, the community is self-moderating and someone who does know will point out the inaccuracy. We also want to give users a fair amount of freedom - moderating everything we perceive is inaccurate or we disagree with is counter to that.

"However, if there is a dispute, consensus should be reached on the talk page before making the edits. " Exactly what I would like. Except if you notice Herschell took it upon himself to edit the main article extensively without ever looking at the talk page. --Jason Edwards 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of edit wars/consensus, I think the involved parties in this article should come to an agreement before moving forward. In my own personal (not official YARR) opinion, I think this article is a nice addition to the wiki, and an excellent resource for new players. I think it should focus more on the whys of fitting, ship specific reasons for fitting that way (cpu/pg, bonuses, etc) and explanations of pve fitting. In its current form, it provides some decent fits but little variety and no explanations. I will monitor this page, and if it really degenerates into an edit war, I'll consult with my superiors and look into locking it or some other alternative.

"I think it should focus more on the whys of fitting, ship specific reasons for fitting that way (cpu/pg, bonuses, etc) and explanations of pve fitting." I'm working on that with the example box; but I need to fix these extreme high skill modules out of the low skill setups first. --Jason Edwards 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of meta lvl 4/5/faction, you're not taking into account weapon spec skills. Faction guns have more on-paper dps, but with spec lvl IV t2 guns will exceed meta 4/faction. With the notable exception of faction missile launchers... As for, "taking too long," a good point for newer players (the intended target audience of this article) but many people already have this or will have it eventually. Also, faction guns can be expensive. --ISD Salpsan 03:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that is only for weapon spec skills. These takes months and months to train. Which do not fit in low skill setups. Furthermore; faction for example Gallente navy stasis webifier is clearly better then tech 2 no matter of situation; I still left those to the high cost setups. Furthermore there are situations where meta 4 is better in all ways to t2. --Jason Edwards 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes this article is for the newer players; not for pvpers coming to pve with high skills; and not for ebay chars. This means tech 2 weapons are not an option. Isk can be earnt far faster then skills being trained. I have billions in my wallet, but no t2 weapon systems. If they dont have the isk for the high cost, low skill. They have the low cost, low skill option.--Jason Edwards 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should point new players towards the tech 2 variants because if the tech 2 variant fits, the t1 one named should fit as well. Plus, it gives direction to new players. If you want faction fit versions, maybe direct them to the individual ship pages. Besides, directing brand new players to buy faction gear is a good way for them to lose a ton of isk, in a hurry. If they don't have the skill points, the might not have the skill to do shield pulsing, or aligning, or understanding when they've been misinformed about which missile type a rat uses. Also I have copied out the current configs to the individual ships, giving the 'experts' on that particular ship room to discuss, rather than locating all the ship fits on one page. I believe this is warranted because we have several hundred posts on the eve forums on different ship fits. Dictating only one right fit for level 4 missions is a sure fire way to have a useless and inaccurate page, with tons of changes per day, especially if you have an overly controlling creator.--Kismeteer 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Besides, directing brand new players to buy faction gear is a good way for them to lose a ton of isk, in a hurry. " No one has done this. So you can retract your assertion now.--Jason Edwards 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was directing such comments at ISD Salpsan, so I'd appreciate it if you would not edit my comment thread. And I believe the argument of "this article is for the newer players" when referring to this page full of faction fittings is precisely what this page encourages, getting new players to buy faction gear. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to game the market for certain faction gear.--Kismeteer 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The setups for low skill, low cost has no faction fittings. So you lose the argument. I was never directing them to purchase faction gear. I was fixing Herch's assertion that low cost, low skill setups need tech 2 weapons. Which do not fit with LOW SKILL.--Jason Edwards 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read my changes? I put everything to T2 gear to make the page easier to read - use the base item names for everything, use a common grade of gear, and place a note at the top of the page on what was done, why, and how readers should deal with it. There's no cookie-cutter setup for anything(except the Dominix), so we shouldn't be using our own preferred item grades for fits. You cannot assume that everyone reading this has the bankroll for a dozen pieces of faction gear on their ship, so you give them the bare bones of the setup, and let them work out the details to fit their own budget. It's the only sane way to write an article like this, at least until someone goes in and makes useful pages for item categories(so I can link to Cruise Launcher directly instead of having to pick one particular model). Unless a specific piece of gear is needed - usually so that it'll fit on PG/CPU - go to the baseline. I'm well aware that faction gear is better. I've been playing longer than you, give me a bit of credit here. I just don't want to put it in the guide, unless it's a guide on how to fit a Titan.

Easier to read? Hardly necessary. Not to mention tech 2 weapons on those fits were not good. The low skill, low cost setups do not require a "bankroll for faction gear" There was no faction modules on those setups. Meta 4 at most expensive. PS. Nobody puts faction gear on a Titan. You officer fit supercapitals.--Jason Edwards 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because who wants to be able to look at an article and know what people are talking about? In case you haven't noticed, the names of named items in this game are obscure and not obvious. I know they can click to see what they are, but it's better for all involved if they don't have to. Herschel Yamamoto 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As for "my page", please, get over yourself. It's a wiki, not a fiefdom. As for checking the talk page, I did. I didn't see any arguments of substance. What did you think I should avoid because of a discussion in progress?

It is primarily my work. Furthermore since you wanted to make such significant changes to this page. You should have discussed it here first. I have reversed all your changes.--Jason Edwards 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you did a lot of it. Bully for you. Doesn't make you the Guide God. And if you want every edit to have to go through a committee, judicial inquest, and Royal Commission before an edit can be made, go found BureaucracyWiki yourself. I've never seen a wiki that prohibited major article revisions on topics that the discussion page is silent on. If there was a major discussion going on and I'd blundered in, then I'd agree with you acting offended about it. Thing is, I checked, and I didn't. I won't make any more edits until we hash this out, but blindly reverting everything because I walked on your turf is the height of officious priggishness, and I hope you'll excuse me if I don't care much for it. Herschel Yamamoto 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As for how the article should be written, I largely agree about how it should be more of a guide and less of a list. I was actually working towards that with these edits - I didn't have the time to go rewrite it wholly, so I cleaned it up in a few ways - rewrote the note, added an intro, made the entries easier to read. It's not perfect, but it was a big improvement.

As for your hatred of T2 weapons, I don't know what to say that will convince you, but they do good damage, are quite cheap, and are readily available. As well, especially in the case of missiles and medium guns, they're not especially skill-intensive. Ultimately, this is what the note you deleted is for - nothing will satisfy everyone, pick a simple system and stick with it, instead of having a plethora of different systems of picking gear based on what whoever wrote it felt like at the time. Herschel Yamamoto 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

T2 weapons have just that to it. This page is for the newbs who dont have T2 weapons. If you have T2 weapons you have no interest in this guide. Yes they are skill intensive. 2 months just to access the modules; let alone support skills. Not to mention 2 months with +5 implants; add a week longer for newbs. That's VERY skill intensive. 1 year old characters arent likely to have tech 2 weaponry.--Jason Edwards 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to standardize. Standardize to unnamed T1 gear for all I care. I just want it to be simple, uniform, and easy to read. It's a bit more work for the editors, but the right way to do this might almost be to have the example be, e.g., "6x Cruise Missile Launcher" - scans cleanly, and links people to the version that we think is best for the fit. That make sense to you? Herschel Yamamoto 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing the merits of faction vs tech2 vs meta 4 here, why not do it on the page? For example, cover tech 2/faction/meta4 in the main article (before the actual fits), discuss strengths and weaknesses, then use a standardized type for all the fittings list. Chances are if we need to debate something, it should be covered in the article. It doesn't need to happen right away - but in time. BTW jason, if you really want a fittings list on the wiki that you have complete control over, you can put it in a sub page on your user page. for example User:jason/fits/level 4 fits. etc. --ISD Salpsan 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to do that on my user page; but the purpose of this page is make it publically available rather than on my user page that nobody will see. Not to mention. This is Herschel's disagreement. He can take it to his user page; he is the one coming to the page to edit. Why does it have to be me who has to leave? I was here first and am still here. If the consensus from this page says Tech 2 weapons(60 days of training) is appropriate on low skill setups. So be it.--Jason Edwards 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That was more or less what I tried to do in my edit. It might need some cleanup, since my commentary was a bit short, but I think the principle was sound. Herschel Yamamoto 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not what you did in your edit. Dont lie. Infact my additions to the page accomplished this. You changed the setups to either bad setups or high skill requirements on low skill requirement setups.--Jason Edwards 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF? I'll point you to this section:

Also, a note on the gear used here. In all cases, the fits below are standardized to tech II gear and tech I rigs unless something else is necessary to make the fit function. In many cases, the best named gear('Arbalest' Cruise Launcher I instead of Cruise Missile Launcher II, for example) is perfectly adequate for players without the skills for Tech II, while rich players will often want to upgrade to faction, deadspace, or officer gear(Caldari Navy Cruise Missile Launcher or Estamel's Modified Cruise Missile Launcher, for example) in order to make their ship more effective. These fits are not definitive, adjust them as necessary to make them fit your skills, budget, and individual preferences.

What more do you want? It was a note on what I standardized to, why, and what the average player should do with that information to get a ship fit they can use. Not perfect, I'll agree, but I'm hardly lying. Herschel Yamamoto 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words you want to be more clear by being completely unclear; resulting in being utterly unclear and unhelpful. You want to list setups that aren't low skill at all. Meaning only experienced players could use such setups; the people who can fit such setups have no interest in such a wiki page. How useful you are. Also in other words... the people who need the help; and cant figure it out for themselves are actually going to need to decode and figure it out for themselves.--Jason Edwards 07:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I read that as "If you have the skills for T2, use that. If you don't, but can afford faction, use that. If you can't, use named." Yes, this is a guide for newbies, but we're talking about new to L4 missioning, not new to kindergarten. And as I've said several times now, I didn't claim that what I wrote was perfect, or that there's no better way of doing it. All I said was that I had a section in my edit to explain what I'd done and why, and how the average player should use the guide. What part of that am I lying about? Herschel Yamamoto 07:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We are helping newbs. Newbs dont have the skills for T2. So now you have newbs on a wild goose chase for some unknown, unnamed module they dont know about. I put little dealios saying that if they can use tech 2... they should. If they took 2 months of training and put it to tech 2 weapons... they very much so know they can use such a ship. You dont just train and find out after 2 months you can use them.--Jason Edwards 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Egads... please, for the love of Chribba, drop the personal attacks. It's pretty obvious that both of you are making in-good-faith edits. Keep in mind we're all working for the betterment of the wiki here. We're not enemies. Maybe we should all sleep on this? Getting a bit too personal. Anyway, why don't we start working on the article? Jason, if you have a problem with his wording, post it here in the talk page with your suggested improvements. Let's try to keep the discussion focused more on improvements to the article, rather than... whatever has been going on in here :p --ISD Salpsan 08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Drake

Drake High Slots:

• 7x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Note: Requires Advanced Weapon Upgrades 4 to fit. If you don't have AWU, use Arbalests or drop a SPR to a PDU)
• 1x Small Tractor Beam I

Medium Slots:'

• 3x Large Shield Extender II
• 2x Mission Specific Hardeners
• 1x Shield Recharger II

Low Slots:

• 4x Shield Power Relay II

Rig Slots:

• 3x Core Defence Field Purger I

This setup requires high skill requirements. Deals less dps then the standard low skill, low cost raven, AND whose passive shield tank with maximum skills is effectively the same as the vanilla raven. So I am removing it. Leaving it here.--Jason Edwards 01:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it in because some people will have a Drake on hand and want to do L4s, which it's capable of, if badly. It should probably be re-added if we're going to make the article longer and add more explanation, failing that just delete it. It's popular enough, but I'll agree that it isn't very good.Herschel Yamamoto 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I put it back in, because saving the first 50 million for a battlecruiser is tough for a new pilot. Putting the rigs in is expensive, but they might have the parts for those. It can at least tank the damage, though the output sucks. Plus, it transitions to PVP rather easily, as the drake is ideal for surviving PVP. I put in the notes that they should look at getting into a raven first, as well. Not everyone can afford the price tag on a 100 mil raven, plus I changed the missiles to T1 with notes. One additional note: I know because I had to use one to do level 4 missions for a couple weeks after losing everything in 0.0. I had one, I used it, it got the job done, and then I was able to afford a battleship after that. --Kismeteer 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)