EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-02-14 02:48
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-18 20:20
  • Number of Posts: 3,132
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Cade Windstalker

Security Status 5.0

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    T3's are not overpowered apart from the ability to fit battleship sized modules but that applies to all cruisers. Even with that odd ability the Tengu is the only one that gets a crazy tank but then you can similiarly fit an Onyx, Eagle and they also get crazy tank. I've tanked 20 man fleets in an Onyx and Eagle.

    Baltec is yet to show evidence of a T3 that is overpowered. He will generally say oh Proteus gets 150k ehp therefore its overpowered and like a battleship but he fails to acknowledge such a Proteus is about as useful as floating asteroid when it comes to fighting, tackling or keeping its cap up.

    Smoke and Mirrors as usual.


    CCP have repeatedly stated that ships are meant to be able to fit different sizes of modules and they're not meant to be hard size restricted. That Cruisers can fit Large modules is not a balance problem, it just tweaks some people's OCD and they claim that it's a balance problem because they don't like it.

    Also no, a 150k EHP fleet Proteus will probably only burn cap firing its guns and running a prop mod, will likely be outside neut range of most ships, has better cap stability than most comparable ships, and will deal as much DPS as a HAC with one third the tank.

    Case and point, Proteus and Legion fit pulled from a recent PL/CVA fight:

    Quote:
    [Proteus, Proteus - DNA Imported]

    Corpii A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
    Corpii A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
    Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener
    Damage Control II
    Imperial Navy 1600mm Steel Plates

    Small Capacitor Booster II
    Warp Disruptor II
    Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner

    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
    250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

    Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
    Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
    Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

    Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating
    Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors
    Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier
    Proteus Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
    Proteus Offensive - Dissonic Encoding Platform


    Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M x228


    Quote:
    [Legion, Legion - DNA Imported]

    Damage Control II
    Heat Sink II
    Corpii A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
    'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates
    Corpum A-Type Energized EM Membrane
    Corpum A-Type Energized Thermal Membrane

    Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner
    J5 Enduring Warp Disruptor
    Warp Scrambler II
    Small Capacitor Booster II

    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M

    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
    Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

    Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifiers
    Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
    Legion Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
    Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating
    Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier


    Imperial Navy Multifrequency M x6


    The Proteus there has 163k EHP before boosts and does 550 DPS with the ammo fitted. The Legion has 137k EHP and does 500 DPS. Cap lasts just under 8 minutes on the Legion and 9 Minutes on the Proteus before cap boosters are applied (the fits had 400s in the cargo). The Proteus does 510m/s and the Legion 612. The Proteus is 642m estimated fit cost, the Legion is 577m.

    So yeah, pretty sure baltec1 knows what he's talking about here.

    CCP have already flat out said they believe T3Cs are OP. If you want to try to somehow convince them otherwise you're going to need more than vague insinuations about why they're not and insults against the point pointing out that they are.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Coralas wrote:
    I did, and you rewrote multipurpose as dedicated.


    Yes, because that was me re-stating your words how I interpreted them, and I just explained why I interpreted them as I did...

    Coralas wrote:
    Well this is the point where they do need to consider what ships can or can't do what content, ie design their game.

    I'd be perfectly ok if they designed the game so that 10/10s can't be done with T3s, but I'd hate them to just flop out a random nerf purely to satisfy OCD about ship classes that meant that 1 T3 could do 10/10s and the rest couldn't.

    Another solution i'd be happy about would be that racial 10/10s work with the racial cruiser or larger ships, but serpentis/gurista resist profile similarity makes that non trivial, likewise I'd be happy if they moved the maze and any other easy 10/10s to 9/10 (which don't exist), changed the loot table to a-type from x-type and added new 10/10s to hand out x-types that were appropriately difficult for the source of what is basically super/titan loot.

    That would also help drain out the way overfarmed pith x-type loot table loot excess from the market.


    I'm really not sure if you're fine with 1 out of 4 T3Cs being able to do sites or not, but I can tell you right now CCP don't care particularly whether they can all do them or not. CCP make content and ships and then see what they players do with them, and then evaluate based on what they want the risk and reward curves to look like (at least for PvE) and other factors. If only one T3C can do the content then they'll probably be fine with that, as long as they're fine with the time and risk associated with that.

    That's not the problem with the X-type loot tables, and it's highly unlikely CCP are going to spend dev time right now making more PvE sites when they're working on stuff that they hope will become the new top-tier of Null PvE.

    Coralas wrote:
    You keep saying tank, without acknowledging the two types of tank. I think a pair of 1600mm plates is overpowered for a cruiser. But active pve fits don't use plates. ie this is very much related to the class of buffer fits and casual perusal of proteus losses show that active rep fits die all the time since its likely a solo fitting and solo in this game is an inevitable lossmail.


    That's because both types of tank on T3Cs are OP? T3Cs can buffer tank better than any other Cruiser and almost any BC, and they can active tank better than any sub-cap in the game. When you factor speed based mitigation into things I've seen a Tengu fit that can tank 6,000 DPS.

    There's no need to distinguish between types of tank because the T3Cs tank better in every way than any other comparable hull.

    Coralas wrote:
    This is where everyones lack of specificity on what constitutes overpowered does in fact matter. All you are doing is repeating an overpowered mantra without explaining what it is.

    Example of overpowered - cruiser with active rep bonus running 2 reps, all other grid consuming things like mwd, battery full gunrack with no grid rig. Solution tighten the grid until a rig is needed and thus the rep bonuses from rigs or extended cap life is dropped.

    Example of overpowered - cruiser with cap injector, mwd, full gun rack and 2x 1600mm plates with 3 trimarks and thus no grid rig. Solution : tighten grid till the rig is needed and the EHP drops by a trimark.

    ie I fundamentally reject the notion you can claim overpoweredness without specifying what it is.

    Also the t3 destroyers are fundamental evidence that CCP and boxes on a very vague graph are not very accurate, since they wrote the box graph picture and then stomped all over that with the t3ds, and they've still only internally balanced the class, ie if they were to release pirate or navy destroyers they'd have to nerf t3ds first.


    That's kinda because it's assumed that anyone participating in the discussion has bothered to educate themselves to a minimum level on the topic of T3Cs and their general uses, maybe a few popular fits, ect.

    In general terms then the problem with T3Cs is that they tank far far better than any comparably sized or priced hull, and that's just on base stats. When you throw their ability to speed tank on top of that they can mitigate absolutely absurd amounts of damage whether they're active tanked or buffer fit.

    That is why specific fits like X plates and Y guns and no PG rig aren't useful to this discussion, the problem is an extremely general one not a case of "oh this specific fit".

    As to the Pirate and Navy destroyers thing, I don't think that's accurate. The T3Ds are performing a little above AFs and Navy Frigates in most cases, which puts them about where a Navy Destroyer would likely land. The problem is this puts them in a position where they eclipse most of the ships they're actually competing with.

    On top of that the T3Ds have been nerfed, repeatedly, and there's little evidence CCP are entirely happy with them right now. We'll just have to wait and see whether they go for another pass on them or tweak some of the frigates instead.

  • Controlling salvage drones needs some love. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I think this thread just for being the best explanation of the weird behavior of salvage drones and how to make them do what you want that I've ever seen... lol.

  • NPCs using command bursts in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The site escalates based on what you bring, but the Sotiyo is still a fully fitted Citadel. You aren't going to solo that site in anything short of a Dread, and that'll get mauled.

    Also the EC itself neuts like all @%#@#

    I do have you covered on hilarious Blood Raider images though!

    Original one is here from this reddit thread

    There are also some others people have captured:



    So, um, yeah they're still working on the escalation mechanics... lol.

  • Allow any individual to help defend any citadel. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yup, Dark Lord has it right. The way to do that is to swap corps for the duration, either joining the corp that owns the Citadel or making a quick one-man one and entering as a merc on the defender's side.

  • Not enough stuff is being destroyed in EVE Communication Center

    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Yebo Lakatosh wrote:


    CCP Rise wrote:
    We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
    (source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504221#post5504221 )

    Pleease, don't try to argue with the quoted part. It wouldn't look good. You do the "GRRR PVP, HAT PVP" thing pretty well, and that's more amusing.

    Note that the study they did was actually very poor for isolating that factor, poor enough that attempting to use it for any real statistical purposes would get laughed at. Especially since the time period they were looking at is not actually the time period basic logic tells us is the most vulnerable to loss of player due to a gank.
    And well.... Rise used VERY bad language there, since Griefing is distinct from Ganking and the former is against the EULA.

    I'm still on board with ganking being in the game of course, as while their study was bad for that purpose, it is a core part of the EVE idea either way, so even if it was poor for player retention it's important to keep in EVE.
    But ganking could be made a stronger interaction, while simultaneously feeling less oppressive by increasing the gank timer and giving industrials real fittings including a few weapons. This would create the feeling of a desperate fight instead of a blink and you missed it you had no chance once you were at the gate event. Insti ganks are bad and don't create that feeling of involvement and effort. (this is true even for combat ships which get insti blapped in any situation). And if you want to increase that social side, you need to do so in the antagonistic area as well as the ally area.


    This isn't really accurate. We have basically one vague data point for what they've actually studied, a Fanfest presentation from 2 years ago which was relatively light on details and was intentionally newbro focused.

    We have no idea what else CCP have looked at as far as ganking, suicide ganking, ect and its impact on the game. What we do know is they've found nothing compelling enough to act on as far as reducing this factor or making it harder to gank someone.

    Personally I also don't think the mechanics justify adding a huge variety to possible Freighter EHP or giving them guns. As things stand right now being able to shoot back isn't going to save someone because the gankers project losses into their equation.

    It's also worth noting that the vast majority of ganks are small affairs and don't actually involve Freighters, because those require a fair amount of people and coordination to gank effectively and there are few people willing or able to put in that kind of effort. It's rather telling that the 2-3 biggest Freighter ganker groups are each one guy multiboxing a lot of alts.

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Teros Hakomairos wrote:
    Keno Skir wrote:
    Teros Hakomairos wrote:
    Redundant is only PVP in highsec.....

    That's the reason people leave because they are ****** of by ganks and completely unnecessary fights they simply don't want or had ask for.....

    There should be NO unwanted PVP in high so BAN it from high....

    Or at least give everyone a non pvp flag that has to turned OFF to have pvp.

    They moment some PVP freaks can't disturb your PVE sight on the game will be the moment players will begin to return just because they now can roam free as they like in high....

    simple

    and working.....


    Like a stuck record. I find your total lack of minerals disturbing Pirate

    I bet you think taking other players pieces in Chess should be banned to prevent all the sad faces on the other side of the board..


    And it will continue until some needed decisions are made by ccp.....

    In the RIGHT direction.......


    Your assumptions are your own and not applicable to the wider playerbase.

    CCP get feedback when people quit and have other metrics available as well. Less than 1% of account cancelations cite ship loss or player harassment as a reason for quitting, and only about 1% of players are ganked in their first 15 days. Those who are ganked are actually *less likely* to quit the game, per this video from Fanfest 2 years ago.

    So yeah, you may feel that this is a big problem. The playerbase as a whole disagrees and there are stats to back this up.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Coralas wrote:
    You introduced a word I didn't type and then hung your argument on it, there isn't any amount of hairsplitting that is going to salvage that.


    Um, what? You literally wrote "using my multipurpose exploration ship" like four pages ago???

    Coralas wrote:
    They introduced the whole probing system everywhere at the same time, and they didn't make wormhole space self sufficient (no pos fuel), ie they plainly expected the T3s to be traded to k-space for k-space use. As I recall they didn't even expect people to live in wormholes as much as they did and do. They always knew they were producing a powerful ship, its right there in the names T3, strategic.

    Yet I have both ishtar and proteus, and both have guns, and I don't need all the grid on the proteus, that grid is there to run the fits I'm not using, you know, the ones I've advocating people focus on nerfing.


    CCP have flatly said they can't possibly check the impact of every ship in the game when they're released, and they're always re-evaluating whether the current state of the game is good or not. T3Cs are OP, this has been known for a long time, if CCP decide that the site running aspects should be preserved they'll change the sites, if not then they won't. Claiming that CCP specifically intended the current state of site running and T3Cs is a bit ridiculous, considering CCP have talked about what they intended for T3Cs and very little of it matches up with how they're currently used.

    If you're not using the extra fitting space on the Proteus but somehow have room for a full set of full sized guns on the Isthar then I'm really not sure if your Isthar fit is bad or your Proteus fit. In either case as I've said before CCP should not balance things for whatever arbitrary things individuals decide to do with a ship.

    CCP have to balance for how the ships are actually being used. They can't just go around and get all the players to pinky-promise not to abuse what they're given.

    As has been said repeatedly, the tank and the DPS is what makes the T3Cs OP. If your fit relies on the high DPS and tank of the ship there is no good way to nerf these other fits and preserve yours.

    Coralas wrote:
    I've explained exactly what i'd prefer. I'd prefer the overpowered fit to be nerfed. That is not difficult to understand. In the case of the tengu, that may be the 850 dps pve fit, in the case of the proteus that may be buffer fits. Even as it stands, I'm still shipping my ishtar to my current ratting location because its faster at anomolies.


    That is incredibly vague and not an argument. There is no single fit that's OP for the T3Cs, there are a very very small number of fits that maybe aren't entirely OP but those are the exception not the rule. This persistent belief of yours that there are only a few problem fits does not align with reality.

    Coralas wrote:
    Except that isn't how the T3Ds work. They are vastly more powerful than the t1 variants. The only thing that the T1 can compete on is raw dps, and only in suicide mode - as soon as you put a damage control on a hecate, it still matches the cat for damage, and as soon as you put a damage control on a cat, the hecate is just more of everything and with a neut AND its uncatchable in lowsec. Ring any bells ?

    I'm sure that if I make a suicide mode vexor i'd get the exact same relationship right now with the drone proteus.


    Again, the comparison here is not between raw T1 and T3. T3s are supposed to be better than raw T1, it's in the charge. Was it really that hard to read or something?

    T1 is base, Navy is above that, T3 is roughly equal with Navy but less specialized than Navy or T2, T2 is above that but more specialized, and then Pirate is above everything but on the same axis as T1.

    Coralas wrote:
    Aye, in the 1 in 30 case or whatever that any site decides to roll 30 second aggro. All the advantages remain, like better dps in the midfield than rails, ammo conservation, you know all the things you skipped over in your reply.

    Several structures and tanks in exploration require ~600 dps to break. its make or break number. Not only that, 600 dps is on the edge of making some encounters interminably long as it is (and I bet a great number of tengu pilots will complain bitterly if their pve ship is nerfed to 600 dps, let alone below), and the 250mm railgun vigilant with a proper tank fitted, has a lot more dps than that, ie it is not pirate ship performance.

    nerf the fits that are broken.


    Okay, then I'm really failing to understand why you were talking earlier about how using a drone boat is a disadvantage to you. Maybe you were unclear.

    It seems rather unlikely that the Proteus will deal less than 600 DPS post-changes, considering the VNI deals 675 with Ogre 2s and only two T2 DDAs.

    Again, as has been explained like a dozen times in this thread, the fits that are broken *dramatically* outnumber the fits that aren't. There are not individual broken fits, there are broken ships. Four of them to be specific, and they're getting nerfed.

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Aryth wrote:
    We already had plans for exactly that years ago. Shills were even made as I recall.


    Heh, one of them wouldn't happen to have been named Dinsdale would he? Lol

    Djsaeu wrote:
    If you want player feedback that is not affected by the big alliances, then why not make it where a CSM can not be in or affiliated with any big alliance.

    There are Pro's and Con's with this.

    Pro : You get more feedback from the little guys.

    Con : There would be a lot of bribes flying around.

    I am not a wizard at this, shoot..... I know nothing about it, but it is just my opinion on that matter.


    Because that would basically deny representation to a huge chunk of the active playerbase, and be effectively impossible to enforce in any meaningful way?

    oiukhp Muvila wrote:
    Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
    People use CSM to get the game play the way they want it.

    Ironically nothing has destroyed the play of this game more than giving everybody what they wanted.



    I can certainly agree with this, and that was talked about when the CSM was first proposed.

    A certain block of players are able to keep getting elected due to the nature of the game, and influence the development to more suit their tastes at the expense of other play styles.

    That has happened.

    Kind of like letting the players of a game to decide the rules instead of the referees. It doesn't always work out for the good of the game.


    People keep making this claim, and yet when asked to point out anything that has actively hurt their playstyle that was done at the insistence of the CSM the evidence is generally pretty sparse.

    That's because the people with reps on the CSM wish it had more power to influence development, and the people who feel under represented or unrepresented believe the CSM has all the power and things would be different if only their voices were on there...

    Something something green grass. *shakes head*

  • NPCs using command bursts in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Actaeon Versaea wrote:
    Fair enough. I thought O(n) for n NPC ships would be acceptable considering most NPC fleets won't be have more than 40 units on grid. I take your point, though.. O(n) across several hundred NPC fleets in the cluster, the complexity starts to add up.

    As you state, applying blanket effects across the entire grid is an excellent hack to save server time. During the Fanfest talk, the developers stated that the planned move from 'classic' NPCs to module equipped NPCs is a response to increased computing power on Tranquility negating the need for current 'tricks.' Decisions on how far to take the new approach (Modules? Remote repair? Boosts? Cluster wide cyno networks?) must come down to exactly how much margin is available for the new toys to work with.


    There's a picture of one of the new Blood Raider Shipyards with something like 1500 ships on grid at one time.

    And yup, as TQ frees up more processing power and devs find clever ways to multi-thread things without breaking the server then things like this can be added but that's priority based and if I was CCP I'd start doing more interesting things with the individual NPCs before adding in something like this with a pretty marginal benefit to gameplay.

    Like, I'd rather seen NPC bombers, or more rats with realistic module effects, than one rat that takes up a ton of compute on its own.

  • Command Burst Stacking in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Actaeon Versaea wrote:
    I recall, vaguely, that "command bursts won't stack."

    After a brief search of the internet proved unfruitful, I hoping someone here can provide precise information on the topic.

    The first problem that bothers me is fleet wide stacking: If two players are running the same command burst with the same charge, will fleet wide boosts stack? That is, do the fleet members get benefits (with a stacking penalty) from each ship running the bursts, or will only the more powerful booster apply?


    Command Bursts don't stack. The more powerful burst overwrites the less powerful one with its new effect and duration, in the case of equal power bonuses the duration is simply refreshed.

    Actaeon Versaea wrote:
    Secondly, local stacking: If a player runs two command bursts on their ship with the same charge, do fleet members get any increased effect compared to running a single burst with the charge?


    No.

    Actaeon Versaea wrote:
    If this is the case, does anyone worry about the niche for command skilled pilots being over-saturated. With a useful limit of one command burst pilot per 21 line pilots, (256 ship fleet, with 12 burst types available) are there too many good burst pilots out there to be any real use in training booster skills?


    No, generally it's like pulling teeth to get pilots willing, able, competent, and qualified for any role. On the off chance that any group ends up with "too many" pilots with good Command Burst skills then they can simply rotate around flying regular ships.

    Also the saturation point is greater than you seem to think. Fleets often have redundant Command Bursts on field since if you only bring one set of tank bursts the enemy fleet will focus them and make the rest of your fleet much easier to kill. Generally speaking you want everyone providing bursts to be providing the best boost your fleet comp supports.

  • Slightly mad idea to make assult figs great again in EVE Technology and Research Center

    The extra rig effect combined with the added slot would be amazingly broken. An extra slot wouldn't hurt but I don't think it would help much either.

    I don't quite agree with baltec1 at this point though, I think AFs are just kind of missing something. More base speed would certainly help the class as a whole and go well with the MWD bonus.

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Aryth wrote:
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

    If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.

    I assume he's talking about the market figures like Total Trade Value by Region. I may or may not interpret these figures wrong, but it is very hard to believe that Delve, a region with over 20,000 residents, only has a TTV of 405B, while Deklein, a region with maybe 5-10,000 residents has a TTV of 765B, or Curse, a region that's practically dead by comparison, as a TTV of 662B. Something appears to be off with these figures or my interpretation of these figures being the combined value of all sell orders and buy orders on the market is wrong.


    Correct. Our current working theory is Quants #s only are tracking outposts not Cits. I can assure you that Delve isn't 405. It is so laughably off nothing else makes sense.


    Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

    I dunno, given the issue with the Rorquals it's possible that the script that generates those doesn't take Citadels into account.

    Actually looking at the data from right before Citadels dropped (last March, ironically) and comparing that to this March's report I'm almost positive you must be correct.

    Even ignoring Null Sec numbers the values for The Forge don't add up, and looking back on Econ reports before March reinforce this.

  • Remove Jump Fatigue for Logistics in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yarr Bait wrote:
    Not flatly false ;) I have watched in action more than once. That's how we manage our jump freighters by passing toon to toon. We've jumped the fatigue hurdle a number of times and it's not that hard... but as you say, you do have to move stuff around. It's more painful for the single toon accounts which is where the revenue comes in for CCP. While it may not be logistically feasible to do force projection by handing ships off, it is very easy to do jump freighters and using carriers for logistics... as you have a set path and pre-determined route.

    So, maybe false to you... but not for me watching it happen.

    Thanks for the input though. I still argue that counter-tactics are the better solution than forcing everyone into fatigue.


    The training time for even a maxed out Jump Freighter pilot is a couple of months, the training time for an even halfway competent dread pilot is like 10. Plus you need a lot more of them where as with the setup you're talking about you basically just need to move the pilots when you're setting up the Citadels you're jumping to.

    While I don't think that kind of workaround is great, I can't think of a good way around it and I'm not generally in favor of making Logistics people go crazy. After all you can't kill much with a Freighter.

    Yarr Bait wrote:
    Well, when you're moving an entire corp around, we used to be able to jump at will without waiting. If you jump, say three times in succession (orange timer expires), you have an hour blue timer with a quickly escalating orange timer. Hence, you sit while the timer wears off. Where we used to be able to complete a corp move in a few days, it is now stretching into weeks when we don't have all of our alt-bearing accounts online.

    It's positively maddening having to sit around just for some stupid timer to drop.


    If this was as easy to get around as you're implying it is this wouldn't be an issue.

    While I think everyone agrees that Jump Fatigue isn't an ideal mechanic the alternatives are even less ideal.

  • Consistency - Trying to understand the stuff CCP does in EVE Technology and Research Center

    As an Alpha you can only train the rigging skills for the weapons you can train, those weapons are restricted based on the race you selected and the ships that race uses.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    Sorry, but this is nonsense. You might have time to replace the SP loss between battles, but it means you're spending your time keeping your ability to fly a T3 ship instead of training new skills. Over time the player who doesn't touch a T3 ship will have a significant SP advantage. And god help you if you decide to fly a T3 for more than the occasional once-per-week major fleet battle.


    Also don't forget Skill Injectors, which mean that the SP loss on T3s is essentially just an ISK penalty with weird determining factors on its value.

    baltec1 wrote:
    Merin Ryskin wrote:


    "Effort free" is a lie. Covops + nullifier T3s can still be caught on a gate with bad luck


    Bollocks.

    Why do you think everyone used to send their booster t3's through the gate before the rest of the fleet? Its because no matter how many are on the other side they will not catch a cruiser that has a cov ops cloak and nullification. You have to be incredibly incompetent to be caught with one of these ships.


    Bad luck is not something you balance around, and the type of bad luck you're talking about is basically "you lag somehow and the other side of the gate is *amazingly* on the ball with their points and doesn't while you somehow do...

    That is not something a ship can be balanced around.

    baltec1 wrote:


    It is viable, what makes you think the very high end should be easy and soloable in a cruiser?


    Really have to agree with this. In terms of PvE a T3C gives you more punch and more benefit for less cost and SP training time than basically any other ship in the game and you're less likely to lose it to a hunter on top of that.

    You can certainly make other ships equally hard to lose, but it takes a lot more effort, planning, and skill to pull off. All things Eve should be encouraging the use of rather than just saying "go use the easy option, it's better in basically every way".

  • Referring to 'not enough being destroyed' in EVE Communication Center

    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    Joseephus Rotineque wrote:
    Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
    PvP may destroy about 1 trillion ISK per month, whereas lapsed accounts remove anything between 30 and 70 trillion ISK per month.


    Do you have a source for this?


    FAI, March 2017:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Produced: ~4.53 trillion ISK
    Destroyed: ~1.10 trillion ISK

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Mar_2017/0_produced.vs.destroyed.png

    Active ISK delta: -5.1630 trillion ISK (this btw is the lowest ever)

    Since March had a extremely low delta, let's look at February:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -35.5999 trillion ISK

    Or January:

    http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Jan_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -60.7101 trillion ISK

    Or before going F2P, say, October 2016:

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70687/1/9a_sinksfaucets.png

    Active ISK delta: -38.0956 trillion ISK

    No matter when you look, there is A LOT more money lapsing out than the value of assets destroyed.

    So the average asset in EVE is mined, manufactured, traded, stored and removed from economy when the account lapses/goes inactive. It only makes sense to assume that demand is driven by hoarders-quitters, not pewpewers. They want ship X, obtain it, never lose it, then they stop playing and ship X become invisible to EVE's ""production and destruction"" economy.


    Your interpretation of those graphs is incorrect. The value destroyed line that's hovering around an average of 1T is *per day* not per month.

    That means the value destroyed in March was around 40.3T. The total Active ISK delta for the game during that same time was 5.16T or roughly 1/8th of the ISK destroyed in the game.

    The Active ISK delta in February was far larger, at over 35T, but the volume destroyed was still up around 38T, largely due to the shorter month than any real drop in destruction per day.

  • Concord in EVE Communication Center

    Teros Hakomairos wrote:
    Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high).....

    So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...


    This is not the way the game works, or has ever worked.

    If you want a game that works that way I hear there are other Sci-Fi games out there, some of them are single player so you can guarantee nothing bad will happen to you unless you let it.

    CCP have repeatedly said that CONCORD is not prevention they are a punishment and they are not going to prevent suicide ganking in High Sec. It is meant to be safer not safe.

  • Why no capships in high-sec? in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Rubbish.

    Frigates in RL were similar to frigs in EvE.

    Majority did coastal patrols n recon. Some did convoys but they were not really suited to it draught being too shallow. They were cheap recon / patrol. Like EvE frigates. They were also tackle, shadowing targets until bigger ships or planes arrived. In RL they were the smaller ship just like in EvE. They had small fast tracking guns and depth charges (aoe bombs) just like in EvE.


    First off, this is flatly incorrect. Both the US and Great Britain classified their primary Convoy Escorts as Frigates. For example the Captain Class Frigate (A Destroyer Escort in the USN) was one of the more prolific Frigates of the war and was specifically designed for Convoy Escort duty.

    Also Depth Charges bear zero resemblance to Bombs in Eve. A Depth Charge wasn't an AOE weapon it was a targeted weapon, but the ability to target submarines at that time was minimal. Also it doesn't have any of the characteristics of punching above its weight that a Bomber in Eve has.

    In fact just the fact that a Frigate in Eve is a substantial threat to a Battleship makes the whole notion of class similarity here ridiculous.

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Destroyers were bigger than frigs with much increased firepower, armor but had frigate sized guns, they were fast and designed to combat frigates and other destroyers. When they were designed convoy system didn't exist so were never designed for convoy duty. Their primary role was escorting and assisting larger fleets but they did everything from ship combat (Dunkirk, Guadalcanal), ASW work, troop and supply work (Guadalcanal), coastal harbor patrol and one even was loaded with TNT n suocided a floating dock in Europe (France if I recall). They were introduced into EvE as the second smallest ship (like RL) to combat small ships (like real life).


    Destroyers generally had laughably thin armor for a start, and their guns were often no better than those on a Frigate, especially by WW2. On top of that the primary qualification across all Navies for a Destroyer by the time of WW2 was the presence of Torpedoes on the boat.

    The originally came about to defend larger ships from Torpedo boats and then became torpeodo boats themselves. They got used as pickets, screening ships, and many other roles as well as convoy duty. The US Navy treated purpose-built Convoy ships as a sub-classification of Destroyer, the Destroyer Escort.

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Cruisers in WW2 were combat ships of medium size with medium guns (like in EvE) they had faster tracking guns than battleships (like EvE) but larger and slower tracking than frigates and destroyers (like EvE).

    Battle cruisers in RL had cruiser or battleship sized guns but had less armor (like EvE) than battleships.

    Battleships had large guns, were not as agile but had much more armor.


    BCs in Eve have Cruiser sized guns but at or near Battleship levels of armor, nothing like real life, at least until the ABCs came out but that was relatively recently and is atypical of the hull size in Eve.

    The Cruiser description here is incredibly vague and could easily be condensed down to "medium sized". Yes, both Cruisers in Eve and Cruisers in real life are roughly medium sized ships. That means basically nothing. Also some of them had laughably bad turret traverse, it all depended on the ship and the tech that went into it.

    Again, the Battleship description here is incredibly vague and it's clear you're stretching. A real life Battleship was a floating fortress in its time, and as they advanced they absolutely bristled with guns. Any of the mid to late WW2 Battleship designs had as much firepower as several Destroyers or Cruisers without accounting for the main guns, and a massive anti-air defense, though that wasn't enough to protect them effectively from air attack as was repeatedly demonstrated.

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    The line up of ships in EvE was clearly modeled on gun size, role, armor, speed and name to RL WW2 naval era ships.

    I wrote that all from my own head. I'm obsessed with WW2 naval history, watched every movie, read every book I could find, played Aces High, Aces of the Deep. Silent Hunter 1 - 5, most non hex based war sims, watched every doco that was ever made on WW2 and I'm a 15 year member of subsim.com.


    They took the basic ship classes as something people could relate to in terms of size, as many other games have done before and since.

    They did not take the roles, the uses of the ships, or anything else of any meaningful importance from them.

    Comparing Eve ships to real life ships and then declaring that the Eve ship should more closely model the real life ship is ridiculous. You may as well say that some Eve ships resemble vegetables so they should contain more Vitamin C.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Coralas wrote:
    nah, I said "multipurpose exploration". just flat out no.

    Even the stratios is not a dedicated exploration ship, as anything with a reasonable tank, and the ability to fit 3 neuts, a cloak and an expanded probe launcher and deal nearly 500 dps with covert cloak fitted plainly has hunter applications.


    "Multipurpose exploration ship" has "exploration" as the primary adjective affecting "ship" which indicates that you consider the ship an exploration ship first and multipurpose second, hence my interpretation of your original comment.

    Glad we can agree that these ships aren't to be pigeon holed though.

    Coralas wrote:
    If it cannot do the same content that the ishtar can do, then it is flat out lesser ship, there is no point me bringing a swiss army knife if I can't unscrew something on the encounter to avoid me needing a machete. Put another way, the ships were designed to exploit the existing content, not the other way around.


    Only in whatever specific role you're referring to. If the Ishtar is better at everything then yes, the Proteus would be a flat out lesser ship, but that seems unlikely considering at the very least the Isthar doesn't have a bonus to Data or Relic sites, and the T3Cs do, which seems unlikely to change.

    The T3Cs weren't particularly designed with anything other than Wormhole PvE in mind, which was designed at around the same time. CCP never look at every possible thing a ship might interact with when putting it into the game, it's impractical. They rely on the players to point out potential major problem spots but some inevitably sneak through the cracks.

    It could be argued that the original Tengu was one of these, since it became one of the most popular Level 4 mission runners more or less over night.

    Coralas wrote:
    So we have a minor difference on opinion about how effective the deimos is and an agreement that the rail buffer fit proteus overshadows it.

    there are turret slots on the ishtar.


    I know the Deimos can be effective, it was downright hilarious for a while before they nerfed Medium Rails.

    The Ishtar generally has trouble fitting full sized guns while the Proteus gets a 25% bonus to its guns with the drone subsystem and gets around 400 more PG and more CPU along with an extra low slot and rig slot.

    Coralas wrote:
    No, only you've stated that, and I've repeatedly pointed out why I don't believe that is so.

    also that was not what was being discussed. ie baltec and I were having a discussion about the proteus being barely better than the thorax that you've jumped into. I think the whole idea that the progression goes t1->t3->navy->t2->pirate makes no sense whatsoever, no how flexible the t3 is when totally under powered. There is no doubt that t3 moniker implies progression.


    I'm really not seeing any statements with much in the way of explanation behind them, certainly not about why T3Cs in general aren't OP. You've said a lot of stuff about your own experiences, albeit in vague terms, and about why you personally don't want the ships to be nerfed, but none of that amounts to much of an explanation.

    You also seem to have missed something somewhere about relative ship power levels. If you'd care to refer to the original ship tiericide devblog post that I've linked previously, specifically this graphic which is what is being referenced here you'll note that they're putting T3s on about the power level of navy ships but with more generalization.

    Based on what's been done with the T3 Destroyers this means you can have the power level of a Navy ship, but in a couple of areas. For example a Drone Proteus might end up looking a bit like a VNI in terms of drone power but probably tank a little better and either have a cloak, better base stats, nullification, or some additional specialization but not quite at the level of a T2 ship.

    Coralas wrote:
    You do make me laugh, I've just pointed out all the trade offs that make the droneboat proteus good at its task after you've asserted it was bad. welcome to eve yourself.

    yet again, I'll refer you to the point that the swiss army knife is useless if the content doesn't allow alternatives to bringing a brick swinging a machete. That is not a trade off, that is useless.


    Again, I never asserted the Drone Boat Proteus was bad, just generally not eclipsing the Isthar as a pure drone boat.

    You're the one who said several times that using a drone boat was disadvantaging you at whatever sites you're running, and as I said I can't really comment on your specific setup or issues without more detail than you've provided so far, and I assume are willing to provide.

    If you don't find the Proteus a compelling alternative to the Isthar post-nerfs then I don't think there's anything stopping you from bringing one.

    If the Proteus provides more safety from players but doesn't run the sites as well then that's a meaningful trade off and good game balance.