EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-09-05 02:17
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-09-16 00:14
  • Number of Posts: 123
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 258

Angry Mustache

Security Status 1.3
  • GoonWaffe Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Citadels] Dreadnoughts in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The Rev and Phoenix's third bonus seems like something that should be just rolled into the hull instead of being based on Dreadnaught skill levels.

    3 bonuses per skill level makes a huge difference between 5 levels in dreads and 4 levels, which is something CCP has been avoiding as of late, see Drone Interface change.

    The rev in particular has this problem, since a Dread 4 Rev uses 20% more cap shooting than a Dread 5 Rev. If you balance fits around Dread 5, Dread 4 Revs might cap out while shooting before half the siege cycle was done.

  • [New structures] Item safety mechanics on structure destruction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I think the difference in safety between NPC stations and XL structures can't be stressed enough in the new system.

    People would minimize the amount of stuff they have in XL structures, only bringing the minimum necessary, and valuables/"luxuries" would be safely stored in NPC systems, that already happens now, with capital stockpiles in lowsec outposts as they can't be conquered or bubbled in.

    Player owned sov wouldn't feel like "home" if none of your valuable were there, but rather a hunting camp where you bring what you need to go hunt some big game.

  • Dronelands in EVE Communication Center

    well, it's main disadvantage (seclusion), is also an advantage in disguise. Since dronelands is so far away from everything else, roamers and gankers rarely venture into deep drones, and most of the threats come from wormholers rolling into your space.

    It's great for botting and afk ratting/mining. If you are a person who would like to do things beyond that, not so great.

  • Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two in EVE Information Center

    KC Kamikaze wrote:
    It sounds to me like all the folks complaining about the change simply don't want to fight.

    If someone puts a thingy on your station to reinforce it and you put your own thingy on it then the progress is paused. So now you have a battle. Kill their guy and they have to put another one on it. To me it doesn't seem like ceptors will cut it and i think you're overreacting.

    This change promotes smaller skirmish fights. Don't be such a whiney bunch of bears.

    Real attempts to take sov will still escalate to epic cap fleets and t3 fleets.

    There won't be fights because the optimal way to do things with current implementation is with ceptors, petes, and Svipuls fitted with T2 sov lasers. Or with disposible T1 frigates.

    If they come for you, you run for the duration of the cycle, then repeat the process elsewhere. Or you use T1 frigates and just send hundreds of the things into enemy space, they will miss a couple.

  • Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two in EVE Information Center

    Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.

    It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch these men in ceptors"

  • Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two in EVE Information Center

    Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:
    Vigilanta wrote:
    also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?
    Get some brick-tanked Hictors with those links on the command nodes backed up by some cruisers with good tracking. P

    By that you mean Tengus and Eagles, because nothing else can track ceptors at 240.

    Meanwhile they can use Slippery Petes to kill your Hictor that you can't rep.

  • Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two in EVE Information Center

    Allright guys, since they literally have an AFK cloaker in every one of our systems, we can't rat/min to build indicies.

    directorbot: RATTING/MINING CTA @ 2100, Ishtars>tengus>ravens>skiffs

    *** This was a broadcast from the_mittani to all-all at 2014-10-25 04:55:57.479999 EVE, replies are not monitored ****

  • Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two in EVE Information Center

    You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.

    What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?

    All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.

    What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.

    Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.

    So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.

  • Xander Phoena for CSM X in Council of Stellar Management

    More of a roundabout meta question for you Xander.

    What qualities in a candidate do you think makes one the most electable?
    What qualities would actually make a candidate the most effective once elected?
    And makes a candidate good to work with on the council as a team.

    Are any of these qualities mutually exclusive.

  • Jayne for CSMX - ELECTED! - Thank you for your support! in Council of Stellar Management

    Sersei Sarum wrote:
    Jayne Fillon wrote:
    Sersei Sarum wrote:
    Well it isn't about whispering sweet nothings in people's ears. It's about maintaining your composure and not blowing your lid. It just surprised me that is all. I wonder what could illicit such an angry response (toward that player, not me i mean). You don't need to be so defensive with me, I'm simply not familiar with the issue.
    The story is long, and honestly not worth discussing. If you're truly interested in the backstory, a check of our employment history and a read through of his articles on EN24 should suffice.

    I sent a pm! Smile

    Anyway back on topic. In your vision for NPSI will there be a chance for things similar to corp thefts and other fun shenanigans?

    In all honesty stop trying to swiftboat jayne.

    The whole drama affair was pretty much manufactured by seraph for a personal grudge.

  • Jayne for CSMX - ELECTED! - Thank you for your support! in Council of Stellar Management

    Jayne, simple question for you: how would you go on about introducing more small gang into 0.0 warfare?

  • lock and delete thread in Council of Stellar Management

    Hello Marlona

    What do you think should the balance be between ease of living/QOL and the ability for organizations to leverage the same mechanics on the strategic level.

    For example, Jump drives/bridges allow players to move quickly between points. This can be used by individual players to bring their nullsec good to highsec for sale, for courier groups to make deliveries, and of course, for massive Supercapital fleets to smash many different targets across many regions (or used to).

    Using that for an example, Jump fatigue both limited power projection and made it slower/more expensive to live in sov null. It's generally agreed that this is a good change, and the "collateral damage" to residents was well worth it. Is there a balance point where changes to mechanics use in sov-wars would impact "day-to-day" life too much to be worthwhile.

    On a related note, how big should the "home-field advantage" be for defenders of sov, on a grand scale? on a tactical fleet fight scale? on a roaming scale?

  • [Phoebe] HP/Resists Tweaks for Sov Structures and Station Services in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The ability to disable services so quickly might be problematic. Now the health of those services is such that they can be reasonably disabled by a medium sized dread fleet in under one cycle, say, halfway through a fight, preventing reinforcements if that stations was used for staging.

    While an interesting tactic in and of itself, has CCP considered how this, and the "hobojamming" changes, affect the interaction between NPC stations for staging and using outposts.

  • Hobojamming Fix [Dictors] in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I would like CCP to fix sov, afk cloaking, incursions, fozzieceptors, and renters as well, but pipe dreams are pipe dreams.

  • Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Just saying seeing Rise on the focus group about sov null makes me nervous.

  • Dev blog: Incursion changes in Hyperion in EVE Information Center

    Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
    CCP has fairly consistently supported incursion isk rewards; see here for shiny bar graph from Fanfest, showing regular rat bounties absolutely dominating other isk sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2hsqEvPGWQ (zoom to 12 minute mark)

    That graph includes all rat bounties, including mission rats in highsec.

    I'd wager the ratio of nullsec ratting bounties to HS mission bounties is somewhere in the region of 1:3

  • Dev blog: Coming in Hyperion on August 26th in EVE Information Center

    reducing the frankly absurd cap use of 100mn mwd's is a great change, should allow more mobile battleships and possibly reduce the necessity of cap injectors.

    But there's still the elephant in the room, most T1 battleships in the game (that use caps) still cap out from just shooting, which as far as i know, is a problem unique to some laser boats at other ship sizes. Having to beg for cap from logistics is immensely embarrassing when battleships have to shoot pos.

  • Dev Blog: CSM 9 Results! in EVE Information Center

    Two step wrote:
    Freelancer117 wrote:

    Eligible voters have cast 31,294 votes for the CSM9, for CSM8 this number was 49,702 votes cast by eligible voters, and for CSM7 that was 59,109 votes cast by eligible voters.

    Seems like the logical conclusion is that CSM 7 was the best CSM, and everything since then has been downhill. Hmm, which CSM was the last one I was on again? Lol

    To that point CSM 6 had even more people voting for it, but you were on that one too.

    The only logical conclusion is that without the charisma of two step, nobody cared about the CSM enough to vote for it.

  • [Kronos] Phoenix and Citadel Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hey fozzie, ran some EFT tests with the new numbers, and they still aren't very rosy.

    After patch, a all LV5 character will have torps at 2250 explosion radius, 52.5 explosion velocity.

    Against linked carriers moving at full speed, the new torps are still only able to apply 60% of their nominal damage, while certainly better than the 50% now, it's still pretty pathetic. The explosion radius change means against linked armor carriers (using an archon for example) it's not possible to even hit a carrier standing still for full damage, because the sig of the carrier is now below the sig for the torps.

    So the situation arises that you can't hit a triage carrier for full damage because you can't paint them to boost their sig.

  • [Kronos] Phoenix and Citadel Missiles in EVE Technology and Research Center

    GMP does affect citadel torps, so at GMP V, citadel torps will have 2250 radius, which is larger than most linked armor caps (shield caps get hit for full damage).

    With 52.5 explosion velocity, they won't get speed tanked too badly by moving caps, the target speed/exp velocity ratio against a moving carrier drops from ~2.5 to 1.5 (other than the nid).

    In practice this should be about 13 - 17% more DPS against moving caps. which is not all that impressive when you think about it, moving carriers are still going to speedtank these things, you'll still need to paint carriers to hit them for full damage.

    Edit, my initial math was off, the proper DPS boost is 13% against loki linked carriers at full speed, not 30-50.

Forum Signature

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.