EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-12-22 08:44
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-12-30 10:24
  • Number of Posts: 420
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Arkon Olacar

Security Status -4.7
  • Nameless. Member since
  • Northern Coalition. Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Camera Changes: Docked, Docking, Undocking, Changing Ships in Station in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Claymore wrote:
    Amaya Rei wrote:
    Will we have the choice to disable the new "camera animations" when docking, undocking, etc. Or is it going to be forced on everyone?


    At the moment you can't disable it on Singularity, but we will see how the feedback is in the coming next week or so.


    I would highly recommend including that option.

  • CSV dump of all PVP kills between Mar 1-Apr 4 in EVE Information Center

    Talon White wrote:
    Using a pivot table we (RvB) calculated the total number of kill mails (ACTUAL KILLS) per corporation over the period of Mar 1-Apr 4.

    The 'Top 30' result

    11 Jump Drive Appreciation Society 2254

    17 V0LTA 1955

    23 Furnace 1876


    :smug:

  • EVE Launcher GUI version 1.850 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP nLock wrote:
    - Buttons to select alternative layout configurations have been added for those who are managing larger number of accounts than the average user.


    And by that, you mean more than three accounts.

    The layout tab buttons are useful, but the Latest News/Ad tabs are now obnoxiously large, taking up nearly two thirds of the height of the launcher. Please consider reverting back to the previous layout.

  • ATXIII Collusion Investigation results in EVE Communication Center

    McBarnacle wrote:
    So Kadesh Priestess' character assassination attempt on the player who first reported this did a lot of good then?

    It was practically an admission of guilt

  • ATXIII Collusion Investigation results in EVE Communication Center

    The good guys win again

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Esnaelc Sin'led wrote:
    Kinetic has always been Caldari's damage type.

    Except this isn't actually the case, it is only a minority of caldari missile hulls that have a kinetic lock. Throw a kinetic lock onto the caracal instead of a dps bonsu (or remove it from the drake) and you have a more noticeable step up in effective dps against the fits you actually encounter. The current mix and mash approach just doesn't make sense.

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
    Good changes!

    Arkon Olacar wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.


    I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut.

    This is bad.

    Stop doing this.

    Please.


    Could you explain why this is bad? A little reasoning might help understand your bold point


    For the three non-kinetic damage types, the drake does ~5% less dps than a caracal. The raw dps increase when using kinetic is (partially) countered by the resist profiles of most of the common fits you'll see in nullsec, so the drake usually only does ~5-10% more effective dps using kinetic than a caracal selecting the correct ammo type.

    It would be less of an issue if the bonus was universal across all missile based caldari ships, but right now it sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Edit: Need food, but if you really care I can dig out the numbers later.

  • [Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.


    I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut.

    This is bad.

    Stop doing this.

    Please.

  • MOSAIC - Issues in EVE Information Center

    CCP Habakuk wrote:
    Arkon Olacar wrote:
    Every time I undock, the "Opportunities" tab gets toggled back on again.

    eg http://puu.sh/htO77/7ae704adb9.jpg --> http://puu.sh/htO6i/bcfb9a11b3.jpg

    This option needs to be consistent through docking/undocking (gate jumps don't appear to affect it). Or you'll have 98% of your playerbase having a useless tutorial option clogging up their screen for no real benefit.

    There are different settings stored for space and for stations (and also for planetary interaction and the old map). Once you have disabled it in both space and station it should stay saved.


    Confirming.

    The first time I undocked, Opportunities was still enabled in station. I undocked, disabled it in space, redocked. Undocked again, and it was enabled by default.

    I then made the post while in space, disabled it in space, redocked and disabled it in station. It has remained disabled ever since.

  • MOSAIC - Issues in EVE Information Center

    Every time I undock, the "Opportunities" tab gets toggled back on again.

    eg http://puu.sh/htO77/7ae704adb9.jpg --> http://puu.sh/htO6i/bcfb9a11b3.jpg

    This option needs to be consistent through docking/undocking (gate jumps don't appear to affect it). Or you'll have 98% of your playerbase having a useless tutorial option clogging up their screen for no real benefit.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance Part 2 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Question: if you lose a lock on the structure in question but the module remains active, ie through damps or jams, is the capture progress paused at the moment lock is dropped, or at the end of the cycle?

    One way around the concerns about jamming would be to allow the cycle to finish contributing to the capture progress despite losing lock, unless the ship is destroyed. The jammed ship would then need to retarget the structure and then have another 'warmup' cycle before it can begin to make an impact again, but at least the entire 2/5 minute cycle would contribute to the capture progress. Destroying the ship should always pause progress immediatly.

  • The 'one-line bad idea' thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The Entosis Link

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    PotatoOverdose wrote:
    The only thing that intys have going in the current meta is their ability to bravely run away. Take that away from them, force them to stay on grid, and it's "Lol Inty go Squish".

    As long as ceptors with an active link can continue to burn at 6-8km/s, they can still GTFO. Doesn't matter if it can't warp off for another minute if it's 300km away.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    John McCreedy wrote:
    I don't know about you but the average player plays around 3-4 hours a day during the week. Your alliance is going to set the vulnerability window to the time you play Eve. I'm going to sit there in my cloaky interceptor. Am I there to annoy you? Or am I there to reinforce your sov? You can't probe me out because I'm cloaked. You can't stop me because I'm interdiction nullified. Do you want to take the chance I can reinforce G-E? More importantly, does Brave?

    So you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system. If you want to protect it, you've no choice but to set up a camps on the Station, the TCU and the iHub because gate camps are useless. So your entire play time is reduced to a camp to try catch a cloaky camper that may or may not attack your sov. No ratting for you. No mining for you. No roaming for you. All the other time zones in your alliance can rat or mine or roam. But not you. Not yours. You are on guard duty. Why? Because CCP decided it was a good idea to allow Interceptors to reinforce systems. Sound like fun to you?


    While all of this is true, it does miss out the key part.

    It's not just you doing this.

    You're sitting there in GE-, while 50 of your buddies are spread out one per system across Catch. The moment a system is unprotected, that guy decloaks and starts using his link. The moment something turns up to counter that ceptor, he burns off, warps away and cloaks up. Sure, that saves that system, for now. But then that group of defenders has to go a few systems over, to take care of another one of your buddies. He decloaks and starts RFing the ihub again.

    This process will dominate that region for the entire four hour window, with no rest or respite. And no matter how hard they try, the defenders will not be able to be everywhere at once, and will be faced at least half a dozen timers the next day as payment for their four hours of mindnumbingly dull work, with no kills or assets lost by the aggressor.

    The next day, the defender now has these timers to deal with, and he has to capture 50-100 command nodes to keep hold of his space. Meanwhile, those 50 ceptors are still sat there, still poking away every time you turn your back. End result is the defender wastes hours of peoples time, keep hold of most (but not all) of the systems under attack, and is now faced with another dozen timers for the next day.

    Welcome to Fozziesov.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Altrue wrote:
    Andy Koraka wrote:
    Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links:

    -90% velocity
    +sig bloom

    it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender.


    -90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them.

    You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change.

    Arbitary hard caps are a shockingly awful way to design game mechanics, absolutely not. A percentage based reduction in speed would be viable however. Maybe not 90%.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    davet517 wrote:
    Arkon Olacar wrote:
    rsantos wrote:
    I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.


    Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels.


    Clearly, as things stand today they need that much space, or more. System resources really need to scale with the number of players occupying it, to a degree, and that should go hand in hand with how much space that many players could reasonably be expected to defend without being run ragged.

    Of their 18K, how many are logged in at any given time? 10%? 20%? Lets say it's 2000. If a system's resources could scale to 100 players more or less actively playing, Brave could fit in 20 systems, more or less, and easily defend that many without chasing their tails. They could certainly threaten and even take adjacent systems, but they'd have to be mindful of the downside of getting too spread out.

    That opens up space for new entrants. If you want a deterrent to systems getting too densely packed, start widening the "prime time" window once they exceed a certain threshold, forcing the sov holder to either spread out, or defend a bigger window.

    *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

    Napkin maths gives me a current nullsec population of 120k, plus another 15k non-sov holding NPC null dwellers, who would presumably be in for a piece of sov with these changes. If you're saying that a suitable amount of space for Brave is 20 systems, and we scale that across the current total population (including renters), then you're saying that everyone currently living in sov or npc nullsec should fit into 6% of the current systems out there, and if they try to hold more, they are overextended and shouldn't be able to defend that much space.

    6%.

    How about no.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    rsantos wrote:
    I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.


    Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Arkon Olacar wrote:
    Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night!

    I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities.


    Bolded the important part.

    You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there.

    These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    John McCreedy wrote:
    Kale Freeman wrote:
    What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective.




    It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other.


    If this had mobile deployable EHP, rather than SBU EHP, this would be less of an issue for the attackers. A few minutes for a gang to grind it down (rather than hours) would be fine.

  • [Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jessy Andersteen wrote:
    About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but...

    Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field...

    Bye bye trollceptor.

    Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll.

    Awesome.

    Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night!