EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2006-11-03 02:23
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-05-12 15:30
  • Number of Posts: 2,610
  • Bounty: 10,000,000 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Bronson Hughes

Security Status 0.1
  • The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Nidhoggur x Thanatos best ratting tick? in EVE Communication Center

    Running locator agent on "Nicolas Fury" in 3...2...1....

    Pirate

  • 3 best feature additions to Eve since you started playing? in EVE Communication Center

    1. Warp to zero. People who never had to deal with a minimum "warp to" distance simply have no idea how annoying this was.

    2. Skill queues. The struggle to line up skill train end times with your time online was horrible.

    3. Removing learning skills. These were a meaningless time sink that did nothing but add to the training curve and slow newer players down.

    Honorable mention: Removing clone states. Not the current ones, the original ones where you had to pay to upgrade your clone in order to not lose skill points when you got podded. These did nothing but serve as an ISK sink for high-SP players.

    Honorable mention: Removing AoE Doomsdays. You know, the ones that could easily kill entire fleets of tanked battleships in one shot? Talk about breaking the whole risk v reward equation. Getting rid of those was huge to nullsec warfare.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Bronson Hughes wrote:
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?

    When you acknowledge that cloaks only make ships immune to PvP under an exceedingly limited set of circumstances, we can discuss the justification necessary for that limited immunity.

    Deal?



    Exceedingly limited? You mean the extremely common and most well known use for them?

    They have an unreasonably high standard of safety for nearly any use where they might, through pilot error, be broken. For the level of safety they provide at a safe spot there isn't even that thin shred of justification.

    I'm willing to listen, but seriously it needs to be a pretty solid reason.


    A high level of safety (along with the associated drawbacks) is not the same as immunity.

    As for justification of the level of safety they provide at an unscanned safe...isn't CCP saying that it's intended good enough for you? What else do you want?

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?

    When you acknowledge that cloaks only make ships immune to PvP under an exceedingly limited set of circumstances, we can discuss the justification necessary for that limited immunity.

    Deal?

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training[1], fitting[2], and cost provides safety superior to a station[3]. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances[4], much less on a semi-permanent basis[5].


    1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)

    2. Fitting a non-CovOps cloak to a non-bonused hull may be easy fittings-wise, but it does impart pretty heavy penalties for combat. CovOps ships generally have fewer slots and less fitting than their non-CovOps counterparts. So, again, the limitation from the CovOps cloak comes more from the ship than from the module. (Again, I'd like to point out that docking in a station requires zero fitting.)

    3. In a station, literally the only thing that can happen to you in terms of asset destruction is the destruction of the station. Anything short of that, including improper inputs (aside from accidentally undocking), disconnecting, etc. and you're still safe. Cloaks are less safe than stations because they are more susceptible to input errors (which is, I will grant, a subjective observation), disconnects (you will be visible for brief periods while E-warping or logging back in from space), etc. Also, while in a station, you have the option of leaving the system unopposed by way of a jump clone, an option that is not available to a cloaked pilot without self-destructing their pod (and, presumable, sacrificing their ship).

    4. If you are sitting stationary at a safe spot, alone on-grid, and nobody else managed to get a scan hit on you before you cloaked, yes, you are pretty much immune to player interaction under any circumstance.

    Just like if you were in a station.

    But the instant you warp somewhere, unless it is also an empty-grid safe spot that nobody else has managed to scan, you are subject to player (or environmental) interaction.

    Warping to a belt? There's the chance of bouncing off of a 'roid or passing a ship, wreck, etc.

    Warping to a gate? There a chance of passing too close to objects deliberately laid to decloak people.

    And, of course, there are bubbles that can drag you specifically to land on a camp.

    I will grant you that the odds of interaction are quite low, but they are not zero like they are in a station.

    5. I do concede that being cloaked in a safe is something that you can do pretty much without interruption. But that's by design. Part of the reason that cloaks exist is specifically so players can do that. CCP has even said as much, so this point is pretty much irrelevant. (See my previous post.)


    The way I see this, cloaking offers much of the protection of docking in a station while requiring more effort, more risk, and sacrifices in fitting (compared to flying non-cloaking ships). You risk more, and you get more rewards for it. You sacrifice performance in one area to gain more in another.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    CCP Phantom wrote:

    These are based on Akita T's Golden rules for new players, originally published on the old forums.

    Be able to afford a loss

    * Never fly something (or with something in the cargo) you can't afford to lose. Yes, not even in highsec. Meaning that you should not fly a ship you cannot afford to replace and refit.

    Consent to PvP

    * You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
    * You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
    * In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


    No, CCP Phantom did not write them, but he sure does seem to be endorsing them.

    And is it now time for you to stomp off in a huff and quit again?


    I am still convinced that CCP only lets this debate go on as some form of social experiment. They've clearly stated their position on the matter, and it doesn't seem to have changed in the 2+ years this thread has been running.

    Also Teckos, thanks for bringing up the scenario of a cloaker getting camped into a system. I imagine it's less common than people getting camped into a station, but it does happen and it has the exact same, annoying "But muh content!" effect.

  • Megathron Navy Issue Level 4 Mission Runner PVE Fit in EVE Gameplay Center

    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Why not go with a vindi since the base hull price is lower?

    [Runs over to EvE-Central to do a price check]

    Holy hell, when did this happen?!?!?

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Focused Warp Scrambling Script in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kagi Anzomi wrote:
    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    it is a scram bonused ship requiring very intensive skills, high costs and significant downsides _ like no drone bay.

    The Devoter has a drone bay, though for some reason Phobos doesn't.

    It's pretty typical for Amarr ships to have a bigger drone bay that Caldari or Minmatar ships.

    The Phobos is a Roden Shipyards design, which tend to eschew drones in favor of railguns.

    It makes sense from a purely lore-based standpoint, but I've always felt that balancing to satisfy lore instead of actual game mechanics is poor game design.

  • Can we have a faction marauder with drones as the primary weapon? in EVE Gameplay Center

    If CCP were to start releasing non-AT faction T2 ships, I suspect that they'd start with something smaller than a marauder.

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Came expecting to post, "Who the fuk are you Yak?"

    Am leaving ashamed that I had no clue who Yak is.

    Vote Yak 2017.

  • Vendetta Mercenary Group - list of alts, remote reppers and scouts in EVE Gameplay Center

    This topic is so 2016.

  • Multiple Fleet Boosters in EVE Gameplay Center

    Veldspar Annie wrote:
    Howdy,

    I apologize if this is answered somewhere, my search came up empty.

    If you have two boosters in a fleet slinging different boosts, will that work with the new leadership changes?

    Thanks for your time.

    If they're running different boosts, all of the boosts will apply to all fleet members in range, regardless of fleet structure.

    If a fleet member gets hit with the same boost twice, only the strongest one will apply so you can't stack them up. There is no benefit to running two of the same boost on two booster ships unless you're using them to cover a wider area. There is no benefit to running two of the same boost on the same ship.

  • Crime Flags and Standing Hits in EVE Gameplay Center

    Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
    That pretty much sums it up. Ships are fair game but Pods should be left alone if you need standing for some reason

    I can't tell you how many NPC corps I utterly ****** my standing with before I learned this.

    Oh well. If I actually did serious PvE ****, that may bother me.

    I'm sure that the forums will bleep the **** out of this post because, well, I've been drinking, and **** just pours out of my mouth when I've been ******* drinking.

    Twisted

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    FT Diomedes wrote:
    A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him.

    But...mah yields! Ugh

    (I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out before someone else does....)

  • Burn Jita - Safety for Alphas on the way? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Omar Alharazaad wrote:
    Use and abuse are different things.

    Spoken like a true drinker.

    Bottom's up mate!

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    handige harrie wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    H
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


    add a hull bonus:

    Due to its specialized features the Rorqual (or to the panic module):

    - can't fit entosis module.
    - can't fit ewar modules.

    just like intreceptors that with the entosis restriction.

    Now both point #1 and #3 are taken care off, while point#2 is still wide available (i don't see how #2 is a bad thing)

    Seconding this.

    If entosis links and tackle on a Rorqual present a problem, disallow them on the ship entirely. It's a specialized, non-combat ship so this doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility. This is a much cleaner solution than the proposed "must have an asteroid locked" mechanic.

    As for the secondary cyno, I think that we're just going to have to live with. The whole point of the PANIC module is to call in reinforcements, and lighting a cyno is kind of important to achieving that goal. Without entosis or tackle/ewar capability, the offensive uses of a PANIC/cyno combo are relatively limited.

  • help! I got scammed 310M isk with courier contract. in EVE Gameplay Center

    THTILB T wrote:
    i took a courier contract which transporting stuffs from (Jita IV - moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assemble Plant) to (Parra - Near Jita Drop Off) which is also a private station, and then i got denied from docking to delivery the stuffs. I tried to contact that dude, however he reply that it was a scam.

    name of scammer: Danny Long WangTun

    i have screenshot as the evidence.



    THTILB T wrote:
    may i have my isk back?

    The likelihood of you ever getting your ISK back from the person who initiated the contract is pretty much zero.

    However, I feel bad about your plight and wish to help. If you pay me the amount of the courier contract as an act of good faith and contrition, I will pay you back twice over so that you are made whole again.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

    I hope that this includes ice.

    Well, I actually hope you abandon this broken, kluged-together mechanic in favor of something more reasonable like simply disallowing any tacklt/EWar on Rorqs, but given the likelihood of that happening I'd settle for your broken mechanic at least being complete.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Querns wrote:
    Bronson Hughes wrote:

    Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC.


    Wrong. The Industrial Core provides full EWAR immunity.

    Fair point, although as discussed above not all mining/support Rorqs have a core running.

    There's got to be a cleaner way to flag a Rorq as "engaged in mining operations" or, at least, "not acting as uber-tackle" than simply whether or not they have an asteroid locked. Weapons timer is out due to the timer generated by command bursts. Adding a separate flag just for this is just as clumsy as the current solution.

    Maybe simply disallow modules requiring Propulsion Jamming from being used on the Rorqual at all? This seems like a cleaner solution that's more in-line with the Rorqual's role, would still let it PANIC in non-combat and non-mining situations, but would limit its use as an offensive unit.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    While I understand the desire to limit the PANIC module to defensive instead of offensive uses, the mechanic you chose to achieve that end seems rather broken.

    Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC.
    Rorq pilot happens to not be actively mining yet still supporting the mining op? No PANIC.


    Not to mention...is there any other module in the game that requires a target lock on a particular class of object in order to activate an effect that does nothing to the targeted object? One-off mechanics like this are just bad design.

    CCP...scrap this and go back to the drawing board. Surely there is another way to limit PANIC modules to non-combat situations.

Forum Signature

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs