EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-08-11 09:53
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-08 18:59
  • Number of Posts: 1,918
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0


Security Status 0.1
  • Exploration Frontier inc Member since
  • Tactical-Retreat Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [119.6] Fleet QoL improvements and more little things from Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Shocked Well well, credit where credit is due, good job :)

  • Advanced Audio Settings Changes in EVE Information Center

    Please retain the third party warp as its separate slider as its very much useful in itself as its own thing...

    Also please stop dumbing down the game under the pretense of statistics. Are you counting active accounts or inactive accounts? It would sure be easy to include every single account ever and say "oh look only a fraction does X and Y". And even if it is, what of it? Even if those stats were perfectly accurate, you're still being disrespectful to 9% of your playerbase, nothing to be proud of really.

    Nobody has ever stopped playing a game because "there are too many sound options", that'd be stupid. The mere idea that people would not engage because they see too many options that are even greyed out by default would be very weird. And even if these options were actually having a negative impact, then I guess that you could leave them in, but hide them completely instead of greying them out when the advanced sound options are disabled...

    Overall I see once again poor excuses to what basically amounts to lazyness. Not cool :'(

  • [May] CONCORD Aerospace Promotional Ships in EVE Technology and Research Center

    It would have been cool to give out those ships to Mystery Code owners as well.

  • [Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Interesting way to replace Outposts, sounds fun for everyone involved :) With good tradeoffs.

    and some of which will be placed in the cargohold of the Citadel.

    Wait what? Shocked

    Either that "buffer of free fuel" will be stored in a non-existent place, and the "cargohold" is actually the fuel bay... Or the "buffer of free fuel" will be in the fuel bay, and the "cargohold" is a new feature Big smile

  • RLML and HML balance pass in EVE Technology and Research Center


    Meanwhile you have stuff like live-unboarding into neutral bowheads in war time, neutral risk-free command ships, machariels with selectable damage type, immunity to neut and cruiser warp and subwarp speed.

    But suure, go after RHML lol.

  • 118.10 - General discussion (PC) in EVE Information Center

    Hey CCP,

    First, the new mouse sounds are horrible, and it's infuriating that the only way to turn them off is to disable ALL mouse sounds. Also, the sound setting is called "UI Click" but it should really be "Mouse Move", because last time I checked, the annoying sound for 99% of people is this aggressive and completely redundant noise when the mouse just... moves around.

    It's not because it's mouse related that every response from the UI is equal. There is a world of difference between a click and a mouseover. Both in frequence, in utility, and in how it is uncomfortable to hear.

    Please remember, when people are complaining about the mouse sounds, they aren't complaining about the entire mouse-related noises. That's why just turning off every mouse sound isn't an ideal solution for most people.

    Second, the new aura notification is horrible too. Aside from the fact this voice line can stack and play in multiple instances simultaneously (I thought we were done with this kind of annoying behaviour), it is encountered way too frequently and this fact is actively contributing to how much it annoys people.

    I personally think that this sound shouldn't be used in 99% of the cases it is used currently. So, for instance, for accessing containers and targeting stuff, we shouldn't have to hear this. I could see it being useful for things only accessible through a right click menu : Anchor, Unanchor, that kind of stuff. That kind of action is naturally more inclined to be exceptional in itself, which makes informing the player of a range constraint all the more useful, and the fact that it uses a right click option means it will never be spammed like it could with a button option.

    Third, using the notification system for advertising Cash Shop related informations is highly annoying and a very bad signal to send to the community. Not only does it represent pure and simple advertisement -which nobody wants-, but it will diminish the impact and usefulness of the notification system as a whole, as more and more people will simply turn it off.

    I would also like to add that, since opening the fitting window for the ship you are flying, gives you a very easy access to the list of SKINs available for this ship, advertising it separately is pointless, since people who DO fly this ship will know anyway, and since people who DO NOT fly the ship, will not want to buy the skin anyway.

    As a last point, still about the SKINs, I would like to point out that a reuse of the old SKIN technology is a move in the wrong direction, as people want more SKINs like the Star Captain, and less SKINs like the Fire Cell. To add insult to injury, this color scheme has already been seen before for the gallente ships.

    It would also be appreciated if you would release more bundles, and more SKINs of the same type. I'd totally love to buy a race-wide SKIN that covers the entire race, rather than buying some SKIN separately. Even with a big discount (like 75 to 50%), I'd still end up spending more money if I bought this racial bundle, rather than with the current situation. That'd be a win-win.

  • [December] Defender Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I like the fact that it motivates people to bring more destroyers to the field, but since this fits on T3Ds, we'll just see brick tanked T3Ds that aren't killable easily. It removes the whole strategic choice of targeting the smaller ships to unleash the bomb run and that's a shame.

    Apart fom that, I don't like how it nerfs bombers again. Bombs have already been nerfed already, and lining up a good bombing run can be a PITA, not to mention that one guy that has a disconnect (something that happens quite often to some) will screw up the entire run.

    These missiles shouldn't do enough damage to oneshot a bomb. Why not have bombs take two hits to explode for instance? Or maybe introduce a new type of bombs with a 20km diameter area but that can take one defender hit without dying.

    And all of this doesn't address the fact that armor tanking is insanely more resistant to bombs than shield tanking. Nerfing bomb damage on both tanks doesn't solve this issue at all.

  • [Ascension] Clone States and Corp Standings in EVE Technology and Research Center

    With factional warfare being one of the most likely places to receive new alpha players, and (if I recall correctly) stated CCP intent to redirect players toward FW at the end of the new tutorial, it would be a big mistake to consider the standing system as "out of the scope of this release".

    People taking faction standing hits without realizing it, and then quitting when they realize what they have to do to bring them back up, will definitely be a thing.

    Similarly, the idea of being able to help newbies get access to higher level missions due to their presence in a player corporation could be a nice advantage given to player corporations in high-sec, which suffer from so many disadvantages due to the war dec system, it's not even funny... Instead, we have this system, which makes it counterproductive to recruit newbies if you want high corp standings.

    Another wasted opportunity X

  • Ascension features on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Messenger Of Truth wrote:
    So let me get this straight Altrue: you're interested in manufacturing, but you dislike complexity and you hate fluctuating costs and profits? Shocked

    More accurately if you want to define my use case: I'm interested in manufacturing, and offer public manufacturing services, but I don't want to have to go in a high System Cost Multiplier system (which is nonsense, it would be going against the very logic behind the SCM) to be able to tax people high-enough that it is at least paying for the fuel.

    Frankly, we don't need more citadels near Jita & co, it doesn't provide much services. The system should be balanced in such a way that the best profits are to be made in remote areas, just like the System Cost Multiplier was made to push people away from agglomerating too much.

    I'm not against complexity (thankfully!) or fluctuating costs, and certainly not fluctuating profits (that'd be insane). But I think that it's really kinda dumb to have a player tax that is arbitrarily tied to the System Cost Multiplier.

    In addition to all the reasons about micromanagement, lack of profit, unstability, etc... It's also very confusing. The UI basically says "Industry Tax - Public - 10%" and you end up getting like 0.05% of the item's value in tax... What? Shocked

    But to be honest I didn't think about my use case when writing the initial post. I was gathering information in order to write my Engineering Complexes ultimate guide and thought: "Wait a minute, this is completely stupid" xD

    I want Engineering Complexes, and Upwell structures in general to be useful, not niche.

  • Ascension features on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    RainReaper wrote:

    you litteraly took the idea i had on SISI like 2 days ago. guess im not the only one who thought that was a good idea :p
    Exept the part where the corporation set tax would be a set % of the items cost. i wonder how that would work. if it was the same in NPC stations then no one in a npc staion could ever make a proffit? or do you only want the tax to work like that in the player owned structures and not NPC stations?

    The corporation set tax is relative to the Structure Browser, which is a player only, Upwell Structures only thing. NPC stations wouldn't be included.

    Of course, in a way, the System Cost Multiplier works exactly like the corporation set tax could work in Citadels: It's a flat % of the total value of the item. Right now, that's exactly what it is.

    For that specific suggestion, I'm basically just asking that the corporation set tax work the same way.

  • Ascension features on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center


    I have feedback about the Citadel Industry Facility Tax:

    As it stands right now, the percentage you setup in your Structure Browser window, and that you will get for each job, is a percentage based off of the NPC tax applied to that job before the player tax, and that is then added to the final tax.

    So, to take a concrete example:

    • I have an item worth 10 000 000 isk that I want to build. The System Cost Multiplier is at 1.00%.
    • That makes the base NPC tax at 100 000 isk.
    • The Citadel has a bonus of 5% to the tax rate so that's now 95 000 isk.
    • Now let's imagine that I have my industry fee tax setup at 25% in my citadel. That's an added 95 000isk x 0.25 = 23 750 isk tax.
    • So the final tax on the item will be 118 750 isk. 95k for the NPC and 23k for the corporation owning the Citadel.

    Side-node: Please everyone take note that the maximum tax I could get in that situation, for my corp wallet, is 47500isk for a 10mil item. Again, that's the MAXIMUM in that situation. But let's come back to that later.

    This is very weird. Your tax income is dependant of the System Cost multiplier of the system. Which means that as soon as it starts rising, the rise is even more important if you are in a citadel. Penalizing citadel producers more, and making quite the unstable revenue stream for the citadel owner.

    Worse, to get a competitive tax rate while still making a profit, public industry citadel owners will have to calculate precisely the expected System Cost Multiplier, and micromanage it. Keep in mind that a low activity system at 0.1% System Cost Multiplier, can get taxed at 1400% by the citadel owner, and that's still only equal to a System Cost Multiplier of 1.5% for the producer.

    BUT, should the System Cost Multiplier ever rise to a whooping, say, 0.4%, because the citadel is attracting some people, then suddenly your effective final Tax for the producer goes from 1.5% to 6%! For a 0.3% System Cost Multiplier. That's just insane! Imagine the required micromanagement.

    Of course, all of that is only there for the purpose of demonstrating the holes in the current Citadel Owner Industry Tax calculation method, as said tax is anyway capped at 50%. Meaning that all hopes of profit for a public Industry Citadel owner in a low System Cost Multiplier system are lost anyway.

    And even at that low 50% cap rate, if the System Cost Multiplier were to go from 3% to 5%, then your share relative to the total value of the item would go from 1.5% to 2.5%. So you'd need to manually adjust it down if you wanted to keep it flat and easy to understand for your customers. And forget about using same Structure Profile for citadels in different systems, at it may not be the same multiplier at all. (So the way it currently works on Sisi also defeats the point of Structure Profiles)
    Again, that's bad day-to-day micromanaging on a per-structure basis.

    What could be done instead:

    • The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.1% less, in a 10% System Cost Multiplier system (which is almost as high as it gets and pretty rare). If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
    • --- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. (because minus 5%)
      --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier (because -3%)
      --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.

    • The Citadel Industry Facility Tax (aka the tax that goes to the player corporation) should be a flat value of the item. So, if I have a 1% tax, then it's like adding +1% to the System Cost Multiplier, after all Citadel Reductions have been applied of course (assuming the proposition above is applied too)
    • --- Example: Regardless of the System Cost Multiplier, if I have a 1% player tax, then I get 1% of the isk value of the item being produced. So if someone is producing a 10 000 000 isk Item in my citadel, I get 100 000 isk. PERIOD. No need to worry about wild changes in the System Cost Multiplier. EVER.

    I believe this system would be more logical, easier to manage for everyone, would give more benefit to having a citadel in a low cost multiplier system, while providing tax incentives for everyone to use an engineering complex. Of course, if a flat percentage reduction of the System Cost Multiplier is too strong with -3/-4/-5, then maybe going to -1/-2/-3 could be an option.

    Thanks for your attention.

  • Dev blog: Introducing ESI - A new API for EVE Online in EVE Information Center

    CCP Bartender wrote:

    ESI is specifically and deliberately a character oriented API. We will not be delivering account level information in ESI. So yes, if you want to monitor multiple characters from the same account you will have to add each one individually.

    Hold on, hold on.

    The ability of API Keys to monitor ALL characters of the account, is a very important function in making sure that, at least on the account involved, there is no other character belonging to some enemy alliance.

    Taking that functionality away is quite the big deal. And it will never reach feature parity with the API without that.

  • Devsite blog: Introducing the ESI API in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Best of luck for this "new" (kinda not but you know what I mean) project!

    Eagerly waiting for the unleashing of the full ESI potential :)

    Seriously though, you mentionned cool new features with a special attention put into not breaking the game... But what about existing XML API features that are already breaking the game?

    For instance, the Silo contents endpoint impact on the viability of mobile Siphons.

    Can we expect this endpoint to be ported into the ESI API? Will there be some kind of game designer oversight of new ESI features to prevent them from altering too much the viability of gameplay features?

    Also, have your first like haha Blink

  • [Ascension] Citadel Service Slot Changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Given the price of the Fortizar and Keepstar, I don't see how a nerf is warranted.

    Fair enough for the Astrahus I suppose, even though the prohibitive fuel costs of massive services usage are already conflicting quite strongly with the idea that somehow, groups only able to afford an Astrahus would spend nearly a bil worth of fuel every month.

  • NPC Mining Operations have now begun on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Has any thoughts been given to the depletion of belts by these NPCs? Players online in the last third of the day, right before the downtime, are going to have a serious belt depletion issue if these NPCs start taking asteroids away from the belts.

    I really love the idea but I'm just a tiny bit affraid that adding new NPCs that, unless if killed, will basically make the ore dissapear, will create issues for miners.


    Terrible - Red
    Bad - Orange
    Neutral - Blue
    Good - Light Blue
    Excellent - White

    Let me suggest:
    Terrible - Red
    Bad - Orange
    Neutral - Blue (assuming it's the same blue than current neutral NPCs)
    Good - Light Greenish Bluish
    Excellent - Green

    Having them turn White if friendly seems really counterintuitive to me. The orange to blue step is quite strong but at least we are used to the blue color for NPCs already... For the white color, there are no excuses as this one is primarily used for lootable objects.

  • [Ascension] Tactical Destroyer and Small Artillery balance updates in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I like these changes... Except for the Jackdaw. It really didn't need a DPS nerf outside of sharpshooter mode.

    If it's going to be less tanky and forced to stay outside of defense/propulsion mode to do decent damages, then at the very least its anemic damage outside of sharpshooter mode should have been kept identical. The Jackdaw is already the slowest, weakest, 'awkwardest' T3D... Not cool.

    For some reason, it also lacks an utility high.

    I'm not saying that the Jackdaw is worthless, its agility and reload time especially make it very "comfortable" and somewhat fun to fly... But the illusion doesn't last long, as it is clearly outclassed by other T3Ds when it comes to fighting stuff. Which is what these ships are all about.

    Again, it would be much more acceptable if this ship did not see a DPS nerf outside of sharpshooter mode. This simple change would already go a long way, and going in sharpshooter mode to do additional damages would be indeed a good tradeof to have, instead of a straight out dps buff.

  • [Ascension] Phenomena Generators in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "Spatial Phenomena Generation". This rank 10 skill

    The Face When the Titan AOE Buffs skill is only almost half the time of the Fleet Command 5% range per level CHARISMA skill.

  • New ship explosions on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Savior wrote:
    If you have 'Dynamic camera movement' enabled in the ESC menu, and you 'look at' a ship while in orbit camera, you'll see

    Yet another bit of dev time I won't get to enjoy because it is bundled with other disliked camera features.

  • New ship explosions on Singularity in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Savior wrote:

    There are some great ideas coming out in this thread, we'll be aiming to discuss them all internally as potential for a second pass on the explosions once we've released.

    This is awesome!

    Explosions are really worth doing right imo, in a game with such a permanent sense of loss like EVE, killing and dying has a strong emotional weight that deserves great effects!

    Have you given any thought to giving blue color explosions for capsuleer deaths and orange for NPC deaths? Much like the explosions of old. EIther way, a player ship death should look different than an NPC ship death, in my opinion.

    Also, while I like the randomness in the explosions, having one with a wildly different color for no reason kinda sends the wrong message don't you think? While not tie it to T2 ships for players and/or rare or powerful NPCs?

  • Dev blog: Inception - The new player experience for EVE Online in EVE Information Center


    So far this looks promising. Now, having produced beginner walkthroughs for the past four years on youtube and having seen all the "recent" iterations of the tutorial system, I will observe careful optimism and wait to see this thing in action before judging :)

    But efforts in the direction of new players are always a good thing, so props for that :)

    Quick questions:

    • http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70628/1/AuraHighlight.PNG : Are you really letting Aura's eyes stay this way? That's more like Aura Zombie Edition at the moment... :p
    • "We have created 5 new sites for the Inception NPE:" Does this mean that these are combat sites? If so, aren't you affraid that at times of high affluence, lots of new players will pile into the same site and basically mutually ruin their experience? Or that they will visit these sites in the "wrong" order?
    • What is the future of the Buddy Reward Program? Starting today, people who use a 21 day link will potentially end their trial after the November release, what will happen to them? And to the invite link senders?
    • What about corvettes and the rebalancing of rookie ships?

Forum Signature

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart