EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-06-27 04:30
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 13:37
  • Number of Posts: 542
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 486

Andre Vauban

Security Status -9.9
  • Aideron Robotics Member since
  • Federation Uprising Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev blog: The Advancing World of Upwell Structures in EVE Information Center

    This isn't directly related to Upwell structures, but all stations.

    1. Decouple the ability to recover a secure container's PW from the "Security Officer" role. This is a game breaking ability and defeats the use of containers in stations/upwells.
    2. Allow secure containers to be used for the output of manufacturing jobs (where the item is locked upon being deposited into the container. There is currently no way to secure the output of a manufacturing job except dedicating a hangar per person which doesn't scale.
    3. Ensure that all types of containers, station warehouse, vault, container can be used for #2.
    4. Allow for fully fit ships to be placed in station containers/vaults/warehouse.
    5. Please fix the BPO lock down mechanic. Locking down a blueprint collection or unlocking it can literally kill somebody with the amount of time and clicks required. A person should be able to highlight all the BPOs in a hangar and create a single vote to lock/unlock all of them with a single action.


  • Let's talk about Suitonia's suggestions to improve FW in EVE Gameplay Center

    Cearain wrote:
    Crosi Wesdo wrote:

    Asking Pvpers to plex up 60 back end systems uncontested is unrealistic with current numbers. ..


    The numbers of pvpers would greatly increase if ccp made the 2 changes.

    If by joining militia you
    1) had an intel tool that could tell you real time were plexes were being captured right by you instead of having to wander around looking

    2)knew that the plexers were ready to fight because if they didn't stay and fight for the plex the timer would roll back and they would lose progress

    then

    Many many more pvpers would join fw and there would be no "back end" systems. The whole war zone would be full of pvpers fighting over plexes.



    #1 fine, I don't think it is quite as important as you do because if you care about defending said system you should already have at least one person keeping an eye on it. However, I don't think this will cause any problems.

    #2 I still think any sort of accelerated rollbacks will cause a massive imbalance towards whichever side can form a flash blob. The winner of whomever wins the plex shouldn't get a time bonus. They should just get a bonus that says "If the other side doesn't bother to come back, I don't have to waste my time here undoing their progress.". This will result in pushing people to cram more people into plexes instead of spreading out. This is bad.

  • Let's talk about Suitonia's suggestions to improve FW in EVE Gameplay Center

    Boozbaz wrote:
    I like the accelerated o-plexing idea better. Reason being, I've had situations where I've chased a stabbed d-plexer back and forth for a long time between two plexes, and the automatic timer rollback would not work well in that situation.


    Yes it would. The farmer makes zero progress and you undo any progress he has made as long as you actively chase him around.

    In the grand scheme of things, this farmer problem is relatively minor and any sort of accelerated rollback will have massive consequences when both sides are actually pvping. The attackers/defenders progress will be entirely wiped out for losing the first round of the battle for the plex. This will completely change the "king of the hill" type battles we have now and instead encourage one side to form a massive blob that warps from plex to plex "winning" for about 10 seconds while negating all the time the other side has put in. Will it work, sure but it will completely change plex warfare to big blobs and it will essentially become impossible to close any plexes.

  • Let's talk about Suitonia's suggestions to improve FW in EVE Gameplay Center

    Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:

    I have always supported the idea that the "timer rollback" suggestion utilises and accelerated "reseting" of the timer. I don't think the idea has been thrashed out enough to anticipate the pitfalls though.

    Timer rollbacks appear to have stumbled at the first hurdle and so the details of implementation (which lets face it is Dev work) have not really been discussed considered.

    If a single capsuleer chases out another from a plex. It should be quicker to reset their work but the same speed to capture the plex from "neutral".

    This change would allow a single pilot to stop a single pilot capturing a system without warping, warping, warping, warping.. until their head explodes.


    We have talked about this mechanic for YEARS. The way to implement this in the best possible way is:

    1. Faction A starts running the timer, as today.

    2. Faction B enters the plex and a fight happens, the timer stops as today.

    3. Faction B wins the fight. The timer now kicks into "Auto tick back to neutral mode".

    4. Faction B now leaves the plex, the timer will continue to tick back to neutral as if Faction B was still in the plex. This will continue until either A)The timer reaches the neutral position or B)Faction A returns. Either way, go back to step 1.

    EDIT: This way the farmer is penalized for running away and the "winner" is not penalized by having to sit in a plex to undo the work of the enemy he just defeated. At the same time, the rollback is not instant so the loser still has time to regroup and come back without losing ALL their progress.

    EDIT2: Neutrals have no impact on this method. Also, if Faction A just leaves the plex, the timer does not start auto reverse countdown. Faction B actually has to enter the plex to start the auto reverse countdown.

  • Scylus Black for CSM XII. Faction Warfare, PVP and Low-Sec. in Council of Stellar Management

    Glad to see you running. I've fought Scylus for years and would love to see you on CSM even though you are a dirty squid.

  • New FW Complex: Team Effort in EVE Gameplay Center

    Kopatel Raznosti wrote:
    Hi CCP,
    He's is an idea of a new FW Complexes with limited pilots allowed inside the complex (FW members only, no pirates).
    Novice Solo: 1 Vs 1 (namely 1 caldari Vs 1 gallente), frigates. Novice Duo: 2 Vs 2, frigates....... Up to 5 Vs 5 frigs
    Small Solo: 1 Vs 1 in destroyers .......... 5 Vs 5 in destroyesrs
    ......................
    Large Solo: 1 Vs 1 in any.................... 5 Vs. 5 in any (these Large Complexes have to be with the gates)
    Thinking that pilots tyred of blobs and camps shoud like this idea.
    Another hint: entering the gates to these complexes cannot be stopps by dis/scrams when outside.
    Thanks!


    This idea, while well intentioned, is very naive. It cannot be implemented without being exploited. If I want to "win", I get alts on both sides and get into the plex first. "I win".

    As to the second point, CCP already has this feature, it is called gate sliding....

  • Small Gang Ship Progression in EVE Gameplay Center

    BearThatCares wrote:
    Hi all,

    After digging around through numerous resources, it's pretty tough to find elaboration on small gang PvP, key ships and their purposes, and fits.

    I've been around the PvP block quite a bit, but I've never really handled small gangs with electronic warfare or logistics, it's usually just been an all-tackle blob or cruisers with logi. Recently my friends and I have been more interested in contributing a lot more to fleet rather than the F1 monkey mindset, and I'm having trouble figuring out tech 1 ships for them.

    So far, I figured that Atrons would be pretty good for tackle, and some heavy DPS ships like the Algos would be good for mopping whatever they catch. The maulus and griffin are pretty popular EWAR boats, so that would be set for electronic warfare. And everybody loves the Inquisitor.

    What would be the natural progression of this fleet? Moving into Enyos and Deacons, with Keres support? Or would it just be better to move into Thoraxs/Vexors with some EWAR boats? What would be the best method of figuring out the engagement profile of these fleets?

    TLDR : Is it better to progres (SP wise) from T1 frigates to T1 cruisers, or T1 Frigates to T2 Frigates, or something else?


    It depends on if you want to fly small gang frigate, destroyer, or cruiser size hulls. All three are viable, including mixing and matching. What I would say is preferred is to cross train all 4 racial ships in frigates, then destroyers, then cruisers and/or T3Ds. Do all of this prior to pushing a single race up to BC and BS.

    AF's really aren't in a great spot right now, as T1 destroyers are comparable and T3D's are just so much better. Maybe this will change with the T3D nerf, maybe not. T2 logi frigates are great to have as well as T2 ewar ships though. Also, don't forget the pirate/faction frigates, as those can also be very nice in small/micro gangs.

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    "You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties."

    How does this apply to corp run 50/50 lotteries? Is that still permitted to raise corp isk?

    How does this apply to monthly corp prizes for various activities? ie people in corp donate prizes and corp pays them out based on "top killer gets prize X, prize Y is randomly awarded to anybody in top 10 killers, prize Z is randomly awarded to anybody with more than # solo kills, etc"

    Are these corp based activities now EULA violations?

  • Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension in EVE Information Center

    Can you elaborate on
    "You may establish more than one (1) Account for each copy of the Software licensed. You are however not allowed to play EVE by using more than one account at the same time, unless you pay a subscription fee for the Software"?

    How does this relate to alpha and omega's? It is pretty clear that CCP will write some code to prevent another Eve client from being launched whenver an alpha account is running. How does this relate to VMs and containers?

    If I run the second Eve account in a container or VM to circumvent the restriction, is that a EULA violation?

    If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC, is that a EULA violation?

    If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC with a different public IP than the first account, is that a EULA violation?

    If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC and place it in front of a pet, is that a EULA violation?

    If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC and place it in front of a sleeping baby, is that a EULA violation?

    If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC and place it in front of a spouse who really isn't playing EVE, is that a EULA violation?


    I don't mean to be annoying, but people are going to push this ability to multibox alpha's as far as they can just like they did with multi-input.

  • Dev blog: Clone States - Post CSM Summit Roundup in EVE Information Center

    "We agree and so we are planning to implement restrictions that keep any Alpha account from passing character select if another EVE client is already active. This will be true even if the other client is Omega. Bypassing these restrictions will also be a breach of the EULA and may lead to penalties and punishments and all that nasty stuff that our security team does if they catch you being bad."


    Can you elaborate on what is considered bypassing the restrictions?

    -If I run another Eve client for an alpha in a VM/container, is that against EULA?
    -If I run another Eve client for an alpha on another PC in my house, is that against EULA?
    -If I run another Eve client for an alpha on another PC in my house with a different public IP, is that against EULA?
    -If I run another Eve client for an alpha on another PC in my house and put it in front of my wife while she watches TV, is that against EULA?
    -If I run another Eve client for an alpha on 5 laptops in my house and put them in front of my wife while she watches TV, is that against EULA?


    I don't mean to be annoying, but the ability to have free alpha characters doing things to help somebodies main account(s) is so powerful people are going to game the system right up until whatever line CCP draws in the sand.

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    HandelsPharmi wrote:
    Zappity wrote:
    A limit on simultaneous alpha clone logins would be good enough. I hope you can manage that.


    You cannot control it.
    Not even with the player`s IP adress...
    Not even with the MAC adress of your network card...



    Yes they can. Tie every account to a human being (name, address, credit card number, mobile phone number, voice verification, facebook/google sso, etc). Don't allow anybody to create an account without verification. Then just limit the account logins per human to 1. 99.9% of people won't have enough of those to create more than 2 accounts.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Winter Archipelago wrote:
    I was thinking about this on the commute this morning, and one of the common concerns I've seen voiced in the thread was regarding warp core stabbed Alphas in FW complexes. Why not disable the ability to use warp core stabs on Alpha characters?

    Most Alpha characters and ships will be unable to insta-warp (it's doable on a few ships for a few of them, but most will be unable to, and for those that can be made to insta-warp, you can't really achieve it while having warp core stabs fit, as well), and they'll still have access to the Venture, but it's impossible to fit the Venture to insta-warp and since it will show up on DScan, it provide a known variable when considering whether or not you should bother trying to go after someone in a plex.

    It won't stop the Alpha characters from participating in FW (either via combat or farming), but it would make them counterable in that you would have a viable chance to catch and kill them instead of simply having them warp off.


    This is only really a problem if a person can use multiple alpha clones at the same time. If CCP restricts 1 simultaneous alpha clone login per human being, this problem goes away.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Yarosara Ruil wrote:
    Andre Vauban wrote:
    I wasn't clear, let people that currently have multiple accounts role all those accounts into a single one of the new accounts. I have 4 accounts myself.


    But that would mean you'd be able to login on several characters in the same account. which would render your little thought experiment moot, and cost CCP a bundle in subscription fees.

    That's textbook dumb as far as I can tell.


    Huh? You only get to log in more than one character at a time if you pay for the equivalent of a monthly subscription. (ie you pay the equivalent of 1 monthly subscription = you get to log on 1 omega character at a time; you pay the equivalent of 2 monthly subscriptions = you get to log on 2 omega characters at a time; etc; plus everybody always gets the ability to log on a single alpha clone).

    The whole point was the ability to hard force it that no single human can ever log on more than one alpha clone at a time. The only way to do this is to verify which person owns every character. This is really hard to do when people can have multiple accounts and it isn't clear which accounts are owned by the same person.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    David Grogan wrote:
    Andre Vauban wrote:
    After thinking about this some more, I really think 99.9% of the issues with this idea revolve around people abusing alpha clones to scale alts in ways that haven't been thought out yet.

    The way to solve this is to limit the number of alpha accounts belonging to a single human that can be simultaneously logged in to one. The problem here is that people are clever and just using a simple 1 account per PC check isn't sufficient in the days of people having multiple computers and VMs and containers (the real scary one because containers scale much better).

    The way to achieve this is really to tie all characters to a human being (name, credit card number, street address, mobile phone number, etc). Make alpha players pay 1 USD/EUR via credit card to verify they are a real person. Make players do mobile phone verification via SMS text messages. Etc, etc, etc.

    Then, completely scrap the concept of having multiple accounts. Every human gets exactly 1 account. This new account can have an unlimited number of alpha characters on it (or some large limit that CCP sets for database reasons). The new account also gets the ability to log in a single alpha character (ie 1 simultaneous login). Whenever you purchase a monthly subscription (plex, time card, monthly fee) you get the following: designate 3 characters on your account that are upgraded to omega clone and you get +1 simultaneous logins for omega clones. You can let people remap which characters are omega clones using a timer similar to the attribute remap timer.

    .



    i have multiple paid accounts as do many players. by doing what you suggest you would end up killing off all our paid alt accounts, years of training have gone into them.


    no to this. just limit alpha accounts like they do trial accounts only 1 per computer.



    I wasn't clear, let people that currently have multiple accounts role all those accounts into a single one of the new accounts. I have 4 accounts myself. ie when the transition occurs mark all current accounts as "old style". "Old style" accounts are no longer allowed to log into the game. However, a player can migrate all the characters (and game time) from an "old style" account to the "new style" accounts.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    After thinking about this some more, I really think 99.9% of the issues with this idea revolve around people abusing alpha clones to scale alts in ways that haven't been thought out yet.

    The way to solve this is to limit the number of alpha accounts belonging to a single human that can be simultaneously logged in to one. The problem here is that people are clever and just using a simple 1 account per PC check isn't sufficient in the days of people having multiple computers and VMs and containers (the real scary one because containers scale much better).

    The way to achieve this is really to tie all characters to a human being (name, credit card number, street address, mobile phone number, etc). Make alpha players pay 1 USD/EUR via credit card to verify they are a real person. Make players do mobile phone verification via SMS text messages. Etc, etc, etc.

    Then, completely scrap the concept of having multiple accounts. Every human gets exactly 1 account. This new account can have an unlimited number of alpha characters on it (or some large limit that CCP sets for database reasons). The new account also gets the ability to log in a single alpha character (ie 1 simultaneous login). Whenever you purchase a monthly subscription (plex, time card, monthly fee) you get the following: designate 3 characters on your account that are upgraded to omega clone and you get +1 simultaneous logins for omega clones. You can let people remap which characters are omega clones using a timer similar to the attribute remap timer.

    Then update the EULA to make it a perma-ban offense for for any human to attempt to have more than 1 Eve online account. The only issue here would be when multiple people in the same household play Eve and in that case there are minors involved so some extra verification is warranted anyway. Also update the EULA to make it a temp ban offense to use alpha clones to circumvent criminal timers or do anything else that you don't want people creating armies of alpha characters for.

    If you do this, then you really nip this problem in the bud. NOBODY will attempt to circumvent the 1 account per person problem for fear of getting all their character banned.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    I have some MAJOR concerns.

    1) Suicide ganking. The biggest obstacle for players is getting enough alpha to take a target down. With this change, it is now within the grasp of a player to launch 20+ alpha clone players in thrashers to gank things.

    2) Faction Warfare. It is now possible for a single player to launch a large number of clients to close FW complexes.

    3) Scouts. It is now possible for me to put a scout into every system within X jumps of me. Granted you eliminated cloaks, but I can just put them in capsules and I can scale to multiple characters per system so all my eyes won't get podded at the same time. Nobody wants to go probe down a bunch of worthless capsules in space in every system.


    I would suggest that all the problems can be fixed by only allowing a single alpha client to log into Eve from a single computer. Most people won't have enough computers (or able to run enough VMs) to really abuse this.

    EDIT: After reading other posts, safety should be forced to green in highsec for Alpha's. Otherwise, I as a ganker register 50 alpha accounts. Assuming you limit 1 login at a time, I can get together with 20 friends (who all do the same thing). We can now gank non-stop 24x7 because whenever we get a criminal flag, we can log out and log into a fresh alpha account.

  • GalMil: RDRAW wardeced in EVE Gameplay Center

    Super Chair wrote:
    *Popcorn*



    SUPER CHAIR! I would say let's play LOL, but sadly we don't even seem to do that anymore.

    MEOW!

  • Gallente FW low sec access discrimination in EVE Gameplay Center

    Al Nomadi wrote:
    Nat Silverguard wrote:
    wat? What?


    If some solo gallente pilot wants to operate from non-factional warfare caldari low sec he has only one option. Caldari pilots can use 7 different systems, some are close to local trade hubs.
    I mean : if I want to have base of operation, independent from system control and I do not want to build a POS. Where can I go in caldari low sec? Caldari can use Oulley, which is just next to trade hub, and make pressure on Aubenall. Or, like just happened, use Aeschee to flip Ladistier.


    Who cares. As soon as Citadels come out Station lockout mechanics will be pointless.

  • Why do off grid links exist? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Yuri Antollare wrote:
    Andre Vauban wrote:
    Wow, what a thread. OGB are a horribly abused mechanic, however moving them on-grid is not a fix. All this will do is encourage the larger side in fleet fights and raise the bar to fighting to "if I cannot alpha a linked, boosted, CS off the field, I cannot fight". If one side doesn't meet this criteria, there will be no fights because this means the side that can alpha a CS (the more powerful side) gets to use links while the other side does not. This tips the balance of power even more towards the larger fleet.

    What we have today is FAR better as the barrier to entry to get a cloaky T3 booster is fairly low. If CCP doesn't like the way links work, they should just flat out delete them from the game. Moving them on-grid with no other changes is a knee-jerk reaction that is actually worse than what we have now.



    Links on grid is just one change amongst a larger effort to reshape pvp on the grid, viewing it in isolation is misleading. For example, links are on grid but the new grid is ******* huge, I don't see any reason why your CS has to be fit in the style of "hah im a brick" and sit @ 0. Probing changes, grid size, AOE MJD and other new AOE weapons inbound, links on grid etc. are all part of a goal to bring more relevance to the grid in a tactical sense.

    What we currently have is sit boosts off grid or on station, anchor up, F1. What we will have is more options and more tactical depth, do you want to brawl in heavy armor, sacrificing relative grid mobility and likely having to settle for a damnation sitting with the fleet? Or do you want to take a ranged shield fleet with a nano Nighthawk? Perhaps you will go with quick aligning/always aligned booster sat @ 7,000km off the fight with a couple of anti-tackle ships in support? Perhaps you will go with two aligned boosters @ 7,000km in seperate groups. Perhaps you decide to add redundancy to your fleet and have less obvious ships running gang links spread through out the fleet.

    Sounds like more choice, more tactical depth, more relevance of your entire fleets positioning and more engaging gameplay, perfect counters to Anchored Blob N+1. We might even reach the point where a real person makes a better booster/command ship driver than an alt.





    Sigh, but this "strategy" is exactly my point. The more powerful side will have the ability to counter all these strategies and kill the weaker sides links. This will in turn make them even stronger. This is the opposite of asymmetrical warfare that CCP needs to get back to (ie see logi nerfs so the losing side can actually kill something before losing their entire fleet). This is why I'm a fan of taking the strategy of either let the little guy use links like the big guys or just delete them all together. Link strategies that favor only the more powerful guy using links are flawed.

    The argument everybody has is "It's not fair to the little guy (ie solo pvper w/o links) to fight the big guy (ie solo pvper w/ links)". This is valid, however the solution is not to change it so the little guy has a HARDER time getting links themselves. The solution is to make it easier for the little guy to even the field. On grid links make it harder for the little guy. Deleting links entirely from the game make it easier for the little guy.

  • Solo Pilot Plex in EVE Gameplay Center

    Guido-San Tosh wrote:
    Interesting. I just went through your kill list back through October on the killboards, and can't find one you had all by yourself. Do you fly solo with one of your alts?


    Don't look at Z-kill, they count NPC's so a lot of "solo" doesn't show as solo since there was an NPC that did 20 damage on the mail. Battleclinic is better. I've also been very inactive the last 2 months. I'm not claiming to be anything other than an average solo pilot either.

Forum Signature

.